[flagged]
Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
201–210 of 285 posts
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#202[flagged]
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Cindy Cohn, Executive Director of the EFF - Eva Galperin, Director of Cybersecurity at the EFF - Runa Sandvik, formerly of Tor Project - Yan Zhu, EFF Fellow and CISO at Brave And many, many more. It rankled me more than a bit that the author apparently looked around his bubble in Denmark and the FOSS community, saw no "tech sister" privacy advocates, and decided to paint with the widest brush possible and assume th…
Like half this list + Meredith are lawyers/policy people. Add in computer security specialists/operators. They use software as a tool to achieve political ends. "tech bros" in context of the article is pretty much referring to builders of software. The tech sisters who have built significant projects are indeed mythically rare. Names like Radia Perlman might be a better choice.
If you refresh yourself on the thread originator comment, you will notice we are talking about "tech sisters advocating for an absolute right to privacy", not "tech sisters who have built significant technical projects". I think Dr. Perlman fits in the latter, not the former category.
Also, I think the intended meaning of "tech bros" in the article is more nuanced. Charitably: naive, sophomorically idealistic SV tech entrepreneurs who rode the "information wants to be free" wave to a world where WhatsApp & FB Messenger are E2EE by default. Uncharitably: anyone not in author's idealogical tribe, particularly ideologically impure programmers who have turned to entrepreneurism. And Americans.
Good to know you don't think Yan or Runa's technical work is significant, though.
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#204I think the author is missing a layer of abstraction. yeah - once regulators come into play - the private ecosystems take over. discord is already a precursor to this. the era of mass public social networks will come to the end. next it will be just private networks of individuals. likely the won't interact. how the dynamics play out - I don't know - but if you study history - you will know what behaviors will happen…
> the era of mass public social networks will come to the end.
but if that were true, what i don't understand is why don't they just go after the business model itself legal-wise instead of indirectly with age-verification...
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Cindy Cohn, Executive Director of the EFF - Eva Galperin, Director of Cybersecurity at the EFF - Runa Sandvik, formerly of Tor Project - Yan Zhu, EFF Fellow and CISO at Brave And many, many more. It rankled me more than a bit that the author apparently looked around his bubble in Denmark and the FOSS community, saw no "tech sister" privacy advocates, and decided to paint with the widest brush possible and assume th…
Like half this list + Meredith are lawyers/policy people. Add in computer security specialists/operators. They use software as a tool to achieve political ends. "tech bros" in context of the article is pretty much referring to builders of software. The tech sisters who have built significant projects are indeed mythically rare. Names like Radia Perlman might be a better choice.
> In comparison, tech sisters advocating for an absolute right to privacy seem to be a very rare, and maybe mythical, species.
Care to amend your statement? I don't see any qualification about building software there.
Face it, the author was just searching for another reason to be mad at men in the software realm.
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in the offline world that is not the case. Ex. Alkohol sales
An analogous good implementation of age restriction is that one must show their ID to buy an unrestricted device if they look too young. They can't be tracked, as long as the devices are in randomly sorted identical boxes. Of course someone can buy a device and give it to a kid, but that's already possible with alcohol (and legal if it's their kid).
I actually really like this suggestion. Treat a phone like a box of cigarettes. Hey, it could even have a surgeon general's warning on the packaging!
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sensible regulation would be aiming at socially harmful features of tech, not forcing people to provide proof of identity to a third party in order to continue harming themselves with the same exact features. Imagine if such an approach was taken to, for example, food safety? Instead of closing down a restaurant that has poor hygiene, you'd be instead horce the restaurant to hire a private security contractor to…
Except we do that for venue that serve poison aka bars, so if you put it that way, it doesn't seem totally absurd.
And gambling! A poison of the mind, if you will.
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1! I've fallen in love with many of Amazon's in-group concepts, and maybe I'm just drinking the koolaide, but they have the concept of a "two-way door", which is exactly this -- a decision that can be made, unmade, remade, etc relatively cheaply. If you can identify that a choice isn't very dangerous, you can focus on the things that really are instead.
Amazon unfortunately downplays the value of ethics over numbers, and we see how that has turned out. The numbers say that counterfeit goods are just fine.
To be clear, I'm not endorsing Amazon writ large, I'm just saying I like the framing (ha!) as "two-way doors". This is maybe equivalent to your concept of reversible decisions, just by another name.
While we are griping about Amazon, my main complaints are about the fulfillment centers/working conditions, the anti-union activity, building their own versions of products that sell well on their platform, and the penalizing of companies that price higher on-amazon than off-amazon.
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#209First read of this pissed me off, but subsequent reads gave a much different opinion. Do yourself a favor and read this, a few times, and take a moment to actually try and see what the author's getting at.
I detest this writing style, where you assert arguments you don't actually believe in and know are in bad faith, in that sniveling "prove me wrong" tone, to provoke some kind of reaction. Well, mission accomplished, reaction provoked. I'm not going to read this multiple times. I'm going to fire off this comment and remove it from my brain forever.
are you referring to GP or OP or both?
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously if the government knew that you had no kids, they wouldn't need to check it. How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it?
> How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it? How do I propose the government know if I have kids? I'm pretty sure they already know that I don't?
I don't think the government knows if a given random IP connection has kids, or is you.