221–230 of 414 posts
The argument made here seems to be that the power to prevent unlawful access or threats is somehow required to keep us all safe. But if someone was an actual threat, do we really think they’d be using the internet with their own identity? Like if someone is willing to hack into a power station or some other critical infrastructure, they’ll be simultaneously stupid enough to use their own credit card? Illegal things a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few fascist movements sprang out of leftist movements, or had some small overlap in rhetoric with the left, but by and large the most repressive Western governments have come firmly if not exclusively from the right.
So sure, if you ignore all Communist countries and lump in Islamist countries with the western 'right' you can make that argument. Back on earth, its always the left that is motivated by ideology. The only right wing governments who turn authoritarian do so for money and power, not ideology. The ideology of the right (in the west) is specifically designed to be against that. That's why the biggest body counts always…
Is it? I don't really remember the last time I've seen right-wing discourse that wasn't centered around moral panic, whether terrorism, immigration, reactionary anti-leftist worldviews, or the opposition to LGBT rights, women's rights, abolitionism, or whatever else is the current threat to all of western society. Not to mention all the damn religious fundamentalism.
Also, in the EU, Croatia with Orban, Poland with PiS, and a few others I can't name off the top of my head are all far-right parties following Russia's playbook, with mass social media campaigns, turning state media into propaganda machines, replacing top government positions with cronies, etc.
Also, it seems extremely bad faith to compare thinly veiled attempts at seizing power with vague promises of "communism" to every single instance of anything left-aligned ever. Might as well start comparing every single right-aligned thought to Nazi Germany, it's roughly just as accurate of an argument.
The way it seems to me is that the right is about preserving the status quo, moral panic, and worship of strong(or more like loud macho) male leaders, while the left is about not-always-well-considered attempts to better the world whose main problem is that there is indeed a lot of empty virtue signalling and misprioritizing of policies around the place, especially among the center-left which is like 90% of the large "leftist" parties.
The argument made here seems to be that the power to prevent unlawful access or threats is somehow required to keep us all safe. But if someone was an actual threat, do we really think they’d be using the internet with their own identity? Like if someone is willing to hack into a power station or some other critical infrastructure, they’ll be simultaneously stupid enough to use their own credit card? Illegal things a…
This argument is often unsuccessfully used in other areas; gun rights jumps to mind. Often the new laws only affect those who are already following the laws. Those who are willing to break the laws will ignore and/or find ways around them (see: Chicago, DC, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At best you could compare them to fox news, but they don't compare favourably even to that. They are admittedly maybe not quite as bad as Breitbart but it's close enough in my opinion.
What is a more respected conservative publication in Canada?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imposing conditions does not as a matter of statutory interpretation include the ability to prohibit or terminate. What sort of conditions would be allowable here? Its pretty easy to imagine conditions so onerous that it amounts to defacto termination of service.
Realistically the conditions I imagine being allowed under this statute are things like the customer doesn't use [this] hardware and the customer isn't given access to things like BGP. Whatever conditions you impose they're going to have to - Preserve access, because the wording of the law makes it clear that can't be removed. - Be necessary to protect the telecommunications system from a threat (by the definition of…
How's it clear?
The argument made here seems to be that the power to prevent unlawful access or threats is somehow required to keep us all safe. But if someone was an actual threat, do we really think they’d be using the internet with their own identity? Like if someone is willing to hack into a power station or some other critical infrastructure, they’ll be simultaneously stupid enough to use their own credit card? Illegal things a…
The argument made here seems to be that the power to prevent unlawful access or threats is somehow required to keep us all safe. But if someone was an actual threat, do we really think they’d be using the internet with their own identity? Like if someone is willing to hack into a power station or some other critical infrastructure, they’ll be simultaneously stupid enough to use their own credit card? Illegal things a…
Politicians seem to enjoy corruption. It benefits them directly. They really do hate anyone who points out their hypocrisy or makes fun of them. It challenges their corrupt kickbacks directly. I think it's easy to make a prediction of actual use cases here.
One might think it's all part of the plan. Real freedom and self determination has been a fleeting blink of an eye in the history of humanity, and only achieved by a few peoples. Those at the top have always considered it a violation of their right to rule, and they've never stopped working to take back what they believe was stolen from them. Sadly I think they're going to eventually win, and the light will go out.