We Chat, They Watch • Hacker News Board

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#551

Post by rorykoehler » Mon, May 11, 2020, 10:46 AM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #548

rorykoehler wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to ask you haven't been paying attention

So ... apparently you mean the recent events? Well, have you ever heard of the tiananmen place? Or ... the "cultural revolution" from Mao himself? Or the cleansing events after the revolution? Or, ... before the red revolution, years of bloody civil war, with ruthless warlords taxing even dying of their underlings, or general things in old china like child towers outside of town, where the unwanted babys were thrown…

I know enough about China's history but am by no means an expert. All I can say regarding your examples is that, yes they are very disturbing, however technology has changed the game considerably. Perhaps techno-dystopia would have been a more accurate characterisation.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#552

Post by SkyBelow » Mon, May 11, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #480

SkyBelow wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's no reason to possess these weapons any more than there's a reason to possess nuclear warheads. I've yet to see any valid reasons to possess drugs or alcohol. With guns, there is at least the justification of self defense. >and pray the crime away. Is that not what is being done with all crimes (drunk driving, but also many assaults) associated with alcohol? There are two ways government can work. You can eit…

> I've yet to see any valid reasons to possess drugs or alcohol. For recreation, therapy, socialization, experimentation, mysticism, or just because it's my own damn body. > With guns, there is at least the justification of self defense. That would be fine if gun violence wasn't a thing.

>For recreation, therapy, socialization, experimentation, mysticism, or just because it's my own damn body.

Reasoning that equally applies to guns.

>That would be fine if gun violence wasn't a thing.

Drug violence is also a thing.

So in conclusion, it appears there is a double standard being applied here. I suggest getting to the root of that, as otherwise all arguments can easily be dismissed as coming from someone who is applying a double standard (which is a version of special pleasing, a logical fallacy, and thus invalidates any logical basis for their views).

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#553

Post by SkyBelow » Mon, May 11, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #497

brandonmenc wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol use sends a person with impaired judgement and often times a short fuse into the public space to wreak havoc. By the millions. How many fist fights, rapes, harassment, spouse and child beatings, car crashes, on the job accidents, chronic illness, and early deaths must society be forced to accept just so people with disposable income can enjoy a nice red wine with their meal? Seems pretty selfish.

Society already has been down the road of banning alcohol, and it went over just as poorly as the war on drugs, with tons of social and economic costs.

Past failure does not inherently prove future failure. Plenty of things were implemented poorly and yet people who favor them will argue that it just needs to be done better.

Are they correct or are they missing something core enough to the issue that makes poor implementation and almost assured outcome?

And for bans in general, there are many bans that went poorly yet people still generally approve of a ban, even when it has unintended costs, as long as they have a strong dislike of the item being banned.

For example, CSA image bans have a history of being used to restrict freedom (such as the recent attack on encryption) and great personal cost to individuals (any kids who get caught up in laws that didn't make exceptions for kids committing the criminal acts), and they can largely be judged as a failure (from police and news reports of how the problem continues to grow worse). Yet such laws have extremely widespread support, more than most any other law I can think of, to the extent where even reasonable rollbacks of the existing to attempt to fix some of the current problems can kill a political career.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#554

Post by givinguflac » Thu, May 14, 2020, 12:58 PM UTC

madengr wrote: post #409

givinguflac wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intelligence agencies have been clear there is no evidence of that. Do not confuse the US government’s position with the rantings of an old orange racist.

There is evidence pointing to cleavage: https://youtu.be/R6y8dlhoMpo

A YouTube conspiracy video is not “evidence” give me a break

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#555

Post by random314 » Wed, May 20, 2020, 3:44 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #512

random314 wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Democracy and rule of law usually start to have an advantage over authoritarianism when you surpass an annual GDP per capita of about 5000 USD. Singapore disagrees.

In what sense? Singapore is a democracy. They have a high GDP per capita. They have a very strong rule of law and little corruption. I wouldn't necessarily want to live there but it is one of many democratic countries that looks like a much better bet to live in than China.

https://thediplomat.com/2015/02/soft-repression-the-struggle...

They simply bankrupt the opposition through lawsuits and void their candidacy. That is not a functioning democracy.