Cowards • Hacker News Board

Re: Cowards

#191

Post by chii » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:24 PM UTC

einhverfr wrote: post #123

vadiml wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Risking one’s own well being to help the community is basically a definition of an altruistic behaviour. Nobody and i mean NOBODY can reach and keep the position of CEO of big international corporation by exhibiting altruistic tendencies. The environment is too competitive and it promotes egoism and punishes altruism. (BTW, The same reasoning stand for political leadership too). So, I don’t think we can really expect…

That is a problem to be solved then.

no it isn't a problem to be solved, it is a property of the world (of human psyche), like gravity is a property of matter.

Re: Cowards

#192

Post by chii » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:29 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #105

bambax wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Just because it's "illegal" doesn't mean it can't be done -- just as, just because what the government asks is "legal" (??!?) doesn't mean it has to be complied with. "What will happen?" is an excellent question that is not even asked. Certainly not everything is an acceptable risk; if Larry Page seriously believe he would risk spending the rest of his life in prison for publishing national security letters,…

Because CEOs need to act like adults not petulant little children. You obey the law. Period. And if you don't agree with it you lobby directly or encourage your users to do so.

you don't have to obey the law, you choose to obey. When you decide to not obey the law, you also decide to face the consequences.

When the law doesn't sit well with you, you should indeed choose to not obey, then fight the consequences.

Re: Cowards

#193

Post by salemh » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:40 PM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #117

scythe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'know, I'd like to believe I'd do that in this situation, too. But people are more generous in theory than in practice. You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United State…

Whoah, hold on, I don't think anyone is saying this is easy or there aren't risks for Zuckerberg. However to say he shouldn't stand up against tyranny and abuse of government power because he has responsibility to parties x, y and z is exactly the line of thinking that allows totalitarian governments to thrive. Government power is not absolute, that power is derived from the people. No one person can stand up to the…

Dan Carlin (more known for his Hardcore History podcast), also does a show called "Common Sense" and has been a political journalist for ~20 years. With this show, he seems to be fairly non-partison, railing against any side of the aisle that lies on hypocrisy (Left, Right, Libertarian, it doesn't matter, he tries to push at the "logic" or underlying issues and relates them to past political fallouts or successes).

A few older ep's of note re: billionaires enacting change and surveillance states: http://dancarlin.com/dccart/index.php?main_page=product_musi...

Could a Martin Luther King Jr. even exist today? Could an activist "rise" pulling together masses for protests with the amount of surveilance and data scored on people (this is from 2011). It speaks to the issue of whether or not any individual could in this day and age lead such a large-scale movement, and when/how they would be curtailed nearly immediately due to infiltration and "dirt" that is so easily obtained, etc.

Also of note: http://dancarlin.com/dccart/index.php?main_page=product_musi... Description: Another news story highlighting the growing "wealth gap" between the rich and poor in the USA has Dan discussing countermeasures. What if the rich and powerful made fixing that imbalance a priority?

I can't recall if the subject I am speaking to is the above, or below episode (probably below, his show notes are not linked to his site).

Dan Carlin goes into a very pessimistic (and somewhat realistic) description of why money in politics can only be solved by money, in politics. How if HE were to change policies, he would need (or wish to) see a cabal of billionaires. Ready to back actual reformists, and immediately cut them out of any re-elections if they are not holding to the reformist promises made (the below Ep). A political contract per se, with the most "good intentioned" billionaires. He also notes, this is rather unrealistic, as ones "good intentions" can be diametrically opposed to another (simplisitic example, The Koch brothers and Soros).

I'm not describing it well, but his premise is that you only change the top-levels by voting out the House/Senate that change their tune once in office, thus you need the consequences of uber-rich who can, and have the ability, to oust them in a semi-quick (election cycle) function.

Pretty sure its the below Ep.

http://dancarlin.com/dccart/index.php?main_page=product_musi... Description: The only way Americans can change federal government policy is by voting for new political candidates. But what if those candidates ignore the positions they ran on once elected? Also: the implementation Gordian knot.

I wonder if we will have a Bill Gates type billionaire who dedicates the power of his/her mind to reforming politics in such a fashion. I use Bill Gates as an example, re: his ruthless and intelligent business acumen, turning towards solving philanthropical concerns. That "moving of the cannons" would be stellar (searching is broken for older articles, their was a fantastic Reuters, or FT on Bill Gates when he stepped down from MS to turn towards philanthropic causes, and (paraphrasing), "it will be of awe to see the change his business mind, fundamental efficiencies in solving problems, will do for the world of [disease, whatever].")

I also think its silly to assume that though a billionaire has immense power/influence/'stability" to withstand more pressures by the government, this is still the US government which can bring down countries, much less a rascally tech billionaire.

(I am on meds for post-surgey, apologies if this is rambling or incoherent).

Re: Cowards

#194

Post by ThinkFirst » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:50 PM UTC

Coward. Not a nice word at all. I have been called this many time but I still don't know why?

Re: Cowards

#195

Post by argumentum » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:53 PM UTC

lesedilino wrote: post #37

prayag wrote: post #9

I can't believe that people are getting mad these private enterprises. If you want your government not to spy on you, tell THEM. The governments was made to serve the people. The companies are going to do what they think is their best fiduciary responsibility. Get mad at your representatives in congress, not your email providers.

Asking your government to change the laws when your government has shown you have no power over it is a waste of time. There's a growing intellectual understanding that corporations control the governmental processes from start to finish. Therefore, asking the government to change is stupid. If the King rules your country, petition the King for mercy. If an oligarch rules your country, petition the oligarch for mercy…

The corporate elite does not rule the US. We are governed by a hodgepodge of competing interests, including at least corporations, bureaucracies, states, politicians, special interests and yes the people through democratic instruments.

I'm fairly sure lp and pg have strong consciences, at least much stronger consciences that arrington, of all people.

Re: Cowards

#196

Post by throwaway420 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:57 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #185

edw519 wrote: post #167

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the whistle blowers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a whistle blower. Then they came for the illegal aliens, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an illegal alien. Then they came for the hackers--and there was no one left to speak for us.

Whistleblowers and illegal aliens might be morally equivalent to trade unionists and socialists, but terrorists are not equivalent to communists; I said nothing when they came for the terrorists because the terrorists were trying to murder my children.

The government is trying to label just about everybody as a terrorist or suspected terrorist and using this hyped up fear of terrorism to justify a growing police state.

Re: Cowards

#197

Post by peterjancelis » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 4:24 PM UTC

pbz wrote: post #122

peterjancelis wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but do we really think that person will lead a long and untroubled life now?

And this summarizes everything that's wrong with the current ethos. We expect everything to be safe, and we expect everything to be easy. Nothing is above our comfort level and safety. Maybe the knife hasn't cut deep enough, or maybe we don't have the stamina to get off our couch. Either way, sad.

I see nothing with this ethos and I'm a full blown anarcho-capitalist so it's not a lack of scepticism towards government that is to blame. The reason is that internet is winning over the state, which is now forced to a reactionary role adapting with regards to new technologies that come out at an accelerating pace.

Some examples: Youtube and social media make war crimes more difficult to hide, Silk Road makes the war on drugs irrelevant, Bitcoin will make monetary policy irrelevant, open transactions will make the law system irrelevant, 3D printing will make border tariffs irrelevant, etc. Every software commit is a sign of progress, a log of someone trying to make the world a more voluntary, peaceful and decentralized place.

Given all of this, please excuse me in not caring about the idiots in Washington, London, Brussels, Paris, Moscow and Bejing who want to make me believe they are worth my time and emotional investment.

Re: Cowards

#198

Post by grappler » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 4:25 PM UTC

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, in the WaPo story: “information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect.

In the intelligence world, this is an important program. It is “among the most important and valuable” programs. That makes it a desirable project to work on. If you're in this industry, you want your name attached to this project. To get that kind of assignment, in addition to being smart and capable, you need to be seen as dedicated and loyal.

It's not impossible that a leaker will end up on such a project (indeed it seems to have just leaked). But the culture will select against anyone seen as a potential risk, in a variety of ways.

Re: Cowards

#199

Post by bloaf » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 4:27 PM UTC

primitur wrote: post #89

jmduke wrote: post #2

There's a meme on Reddit that revolves around 'so brave': basically calling people/posts/comments out for obvious pandering. This reads like a pastiche of Keith Olbermann, all bravado and empty gusto. Arrington writes: What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth? and then acknowledges that doing so,…

>to have an actual conversation both about privacy Let us have a conversation about that: Why should Mark Zuckerberg, et al., know things about you that the government shouldn't? Or, to put it another way, shouldn't the very thing which represents You, the People, have as much information about you as, "They", the Corporations, do? After all, Mr. Z, et al., can quite easily tell you things about yourself which, 3 wor…

>Why should Mark Zuckerberg, et al., know things about you that the government shouldn't?

Zuckerberg can't indict me. I don't pay taxes to Facebook.

There are powers that the government has that Facebook does not, and therefore there are things I would be comfortable telling Facebook and not the government.

Re: Cowards

#200

Post by inportb » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 4:42 PM UTC

noarchy wrote: post #112

primitur wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You also chooose your participation in government. 2. Right, so because Mr. Z. et al., don't have a 'license to kill', there is a difference. This is the only difference. 3. Which do you trust more, McDonalds or Congress?

>1. You also chooose your participation in government. If I don't want to be subjected to any country's taxes or laws, let me know how I can opt-out of this. You can relocate to a different country, but it is up to them to allow you to enter and/or settle, so the problem hasn't been circumvented. On the other hand, I can choose to not have a Facebook account, and can use various browser plugins to stonewall their eff…

>You can relocate to a different country, but it is up to them to allow you to enter and/or settle

so don't relocate to a different country