701–710 of 780 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this is a misquote. It's also a morally horrific line of argument. Like saying you shouldn't care about shooting civilians because bad people in the past have used human shields as a war tactic. These are not imagined people being hurt, spun out of whole cloth.
> I believe this is a misquote. It is a legitimate known translation, not a misquote from the Ralph Manheim translation of Mein Kampf (ISBN 0395078016 / year 1943), page 403. Other translations have similar wording on the page, although not in such a nice succint sentence. Manheim was known to have gone into great effort to create an exact English equivalent of Hitler's work for Mein Kampf. > It's also a morally horr…
This is not even remotely how you used it. My argument is one where there are obvious checks and balances, where government power is clearly and significantly limited, and little is left exclusively to government trust.
Yet because I mentioned that there are actual people being actually raped, I get Godwin's Law'd. Not because I advocated for Chinese style state control. Not because I took away liberties that most people even care about, given most people are perfectly happy using Google services. But because I dared mention that real people are suffering.
This happens every time on HN, no matter how moderate my position. Anything even remotely compromising the Bottom Line (universal perfect cryptographic security) is Hitler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only the Declaration was legally binding...
Well, the ECHR is (for all EU members), and has a similar clause: > Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. unfortunately it also has exemptions for anything a government could reasonably use as justification to restrict this right: > There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agreed that badly designed rep systems can rapidly descend into Black Mirror territory. In Nosedive for instance the score you get is absolute, while the thing we’re proposing here is entirely relative and subjective. The idea is to empower users to maintain their own view of the world. If a voting ring of idiots conspire to try to trash someone’s reputation... you’d filter out the voting ring from your reput…
Maybe you've answered this point already somewhere but how exactly are you planning to make censorship (for lack of a better word) stand out?
"Censorship", meaning: "malicious server or ISP silently blocks or withholds traffic from you" is a risk in Matrix today, completely independently of the reputation stuff being discussed here. The mitigation is to get rid of servers (and even ISPs), as per https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/introducing-p-2-p-matrix/
"Censorship", meaning: "your server admin subscribed to a blocklist of child abuse content published by someone like iwf.org.uk" would stand out to users by the server publishing the names of the blocklists that their server admin has deployed. I'd call this server-side filtering or something instead, given the filters are visible. If the server admin withholds info about their filters, then you're back in the traditional sense of censorship from the prior paragraph.
https://matrix.org/blog/2020/10/19/combating-abuse-in-matrix... is our attempt at Matrix to spell out what a catastrophic idea it is to backdoor end-to-end encryption (and to provide an alternative proposal in the form of using decentralised reputation to mitigate abuse. We're kicking decentralised reputation work off in earnest tomorrow, so watch this space to see how it goes). I guess we'll be weighing in on the EU…
I don't like it because they advocate a social credit system as an alternative, but their criticism against back doors is on point. I am in communities that don't use such tools and somehow there is no problem that would require any, but if that is the preference you have the option. I don't see further issues.
I see this as follows: 1. Terrorism and trafficking of children will win the moral high ground. 2. App stores will be forced locale by locale to conform to these policies. 3. Most people will not notice or care. 4. This will be used by N-Eyes and totalitarian governments to quash dissent. 5. Meanwhile the tech crowd will create alternate app distribution mechanisms allowing those who care to communicate securely. 6.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. It gets framed as "encryption = child abuse" and anyone who supports private encryption is obviously a pedo. There doesn't appear to be an emotional argument the other way - I guess "so you're happy with random police officers[0] browsing your nudes, then?". It needs to be framed as an emotional argument, because that's what cuts through to the audience these days. Only HN is interested in logical discussions ;…
>I guess "so you're happy with random police officers[0] browsing your nudes, then?". I agree with your point, but I think a lot of people aren't actually too worried about the specific case of random police officers seeing their nude selfies.
We need to establish the use of encryption as a basic human right. I'm so tired of this cropping up every couple years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree save for the attack on the EU at the start. I'm assuming you're English (or an Irish Unionist), and will point out that the UK has been entirely onboard with the EU's most egregious abuses of power. Hell, some of them were the UK's idea. (EUCD Article 17 comes to mind.) In this particular case the UK already has local laws which establish a legal duty to decrypt data on command of the government. As far as I'…
You're distracting away from the main issue that the EP has no rights to overrule the EC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The fact so many people feel they need a gun for safety is the first and biggest issue IMO. And the reason for that is simple - marketing. Here in Switzerland I basically see no guns unless I go to the shooting club. There's none sold in the shops, there's none advertised in newspapers, tv or on the radio. And there is definitely no gun offered when opening a bank account. Basically if you want a gun for whatever re…
I spent over 30 years in the U.S., mostly in the upper Midwest, and the only gun advertisements I remember seeing were in sporting magazines or in sporting goods stores. I think your perceptions of U.S. gun advertising is either greatly exaggerated, or your experience is from a very different part of the country. Maybe things have changed drastically in the 8 years since I left, but I doubt it.
I think they have. I've also seen more gun stores opening, with provocative names.
I've no problem with firearms used responsibly for hunting or recreation, but in the very few cases I've seen someone open carrying a handgun (once at a very crowded national park, and once at a residential picnic area, both just this year) it was clear they didn't have a gun to defend themselves (if that were the case you don't need to show it off), but to threaten others. And for defending yourself against wild animals, bear spray is far more effective.