101–110 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There’s no regulation for what happens when Google or Facebook or whatever deletes or blocks an account and provides no support. Yes there is, per the trade regulations you're entitled to a refund . Wait I'm only partly sarcastic. If you think you're entitled to anything provided as a free service then the problem starts there. Do I miss the days when ISPs provided email as part of your subscription? Then made you…
Well one could argue Google and FB services are not free. Those 2 companies are 2 of the most profitable, valuable companies in the world. If they are providing their services for free, how can that be? Our attention and information is what they profit from, and that should not be undervalued. They are certainly not providing these services to us out of the goodness of their hearts.
I don't possibly see how. The services cost no money, thus they are unequivocally free. Perhaps one could reasonably argue that just because something is free doesn't mean the user isn't entitled to any rights, but torturing the definition of free to suit your argument strikes me as obviously fallacious.
> If they are providing their services for free, how can that be
Because advertisers pay them. This logic is like saying FM radio isn't free because it has ads, this is just not true.
For those living in California: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me A copy of my note if you would like a template: ``` Dear Senator Feinstein, I am deeply disappointed with your support of the EARN IT act and am expressing my deep concern and disapproval of such a bill. Congruent with the recent report released by Stanford, I am expressing my deep disappointment in your sponsorship of the EAR…
And, at this point, I'm not sure that she actually even knows what she is doing. However, too many people are on the gravy train that are preventing her from resigning.
We should design cryptosystems that include functionality that support warrants as opposed to being antiencryption and removing encryption.
Please shoot my idea down.
[0] or 'backdoor' keys [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_Secret_Sharing (or similar)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These people seem incapable of understanding the existential threat to free society and democracy posed by limiting everyone's ability to communicate private thoughts. The existential threat this bill poses to free society and democracy is exactly why they're supporting it. It's not some accidental side effect. They're opposed to the existence of free society and democracy because it limits government power, which…
With the paranoidal view you're placing yourself outside the realms of sensible discussion. You can't really think that some politicians are knowingly and deliberating proposing an existential threat to "free society and democracy."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These people seem incapable of understanding the existential threat to free society and democracy posed by limiting everyone's ability to communicate private thoughts. The existential threat this bill poses to free society and democracy is exactly why they're supporting it. It's not some accidental side effect. They're opposed to the existence of free society and democracy because it limits government power, which…
With the paranoidal view you're placing yourself outside the realms of sensible discussion. You can't really think that some politicians are knowingly and deliberating proposing an existential threat to "free society and democracy."
Why not? Many people oppose free society, and democracy has never been popular among elites.
We should design cryptosystems that include functionality that support warrants as opposed to being antiencryption and removing encryption.
then that's not encryption ... if it has a back door....
No matter your opinion on the issue, the firearm lobby would probably serve as an effective model for fighting legislation like this on a long term basis.
The second amendment, like abortion, is a political wedge issue used by politicians to wield against their opponents. You’re not going to replicate that with issues requiring more nuance and that cannot be used as emotional cudgels.
Nuance allows compromise, and compromise allows incrementalism. It's a classic fascist play. It's also a classic politician play to get people lost in the details so that no one truly understands their intent, i.e. "never let a good crisis go to waste".
I'm willing to be proven wrong, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, no, not with the media deciding what everybody heard. We had as much of a free society as convenience combined with the interests of every individual running TV news allowed. It was a complex system and I wouldn't want to describe it all here, but the fact that you and I can talk to each other in front of anyone who wants to listen in, is far ahead of anything that existed then.
>Not really, no, What? You're really arguing that, to put a year on it, in 1990 we didn't have a free society and democracy?
From jailing anti-war protestors (WWI) to jailing anti-war protestors (Vietnam) to allowing corporations to put serious, nearly life-ruining heat on whistleblowers, to the way the media largely operates by uncritically republishing press releases and communiques, I would say it's pretty clear that we're living in a closely managed society with a severely manipulated democratic process.