Can you imagine this logic being applied to any other topic?

>At this point, whoever opposes [CSAM scanning/encryption backdoors] is in favor of [child abuse/criminal activity] ...

gchamonlive 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is a stawman designed to misdirect the discussion. How about we keep discussing regulation in the context of ad abuse?

A valid criticism would be an implied false dichotomy in my original comment (either regulation or rampant corporate abuse). My idea is for us to discuss this. Is regulation not the right way? What's the alternative? Not, "oh if that doesn't work for all possible universe of applicable solutions, it doesn't deserve merit"

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

>This is a stawman designed to misdirect the discussion. How about we keep discussing regulation in the context of ad abuse?

I can't see how my comment is a "strawman" in any meaningful sense.

>A valid criticism would be an implied false dichotomy in my original comment

That's exactly my point. Adopting a "you're either with us or against us" attitude is totally toxic, and shouldn't be accepted just because it's for a cause you happen to agree with.

>My idea is for us to discuss this. Is regulation not the right way? What's the alternative? Not, "oh if that doesn't work for all possible universe of applicable solutions, it doesn't deserve merit"

If you wanted an intelligent discussion on what regulation should consist of, what's the point of starting off which such an absolutist remark? What does it add compared to something like "what's the right form of regulation to address this?"

▲

gchamonlive 2 days ago | parent [-]

So, what's the the right form of regulation to address this? Are you against regulation? Or are you here just to discuss aesthetics?

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

>So, what's the the right form of regulation to address this?

I don't know, but the ones I've seen so far do not interest me.

>Are you against regulation?

I'm against bad regulation, yes.

>Or are you here just to discuss aesthetics?

If you think objections to "you're either with us or against us" and "we have to do something" attitudes are merely objections over "aesthetics", then yes.

	▲	gchamonlive 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I'm against bad regulation, yes. That's... Good I guess? I mean, who would be in favor of bad regulation? Anywho, I've laid out what I think in this comment[1], see if it interests you. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=45182059

▲

red_trumpet 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are comparing the regulation of business practices to the breach of human rights. Do you also think your water company should be allowed to poison the water coming from your tap?

	▲	gruez 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>You are comparing the regulation of business practices to the breach of human rights. So "you're either with us or on the side of the bad guys" is a valid form of argument, but only when the bad guys are evil corporations? More to the point, much of the "regulations" proposed does end up infringing on human rights. For instance regulations forcing social media companies to remove "disinformation" or "content causing hatred/discomfort" necessarily limits others' freedom of speech.

▲

buellerbueller 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The discussion, however, is about this topic, which is meaningfully different due to the sheer scale of the abuses occurring. Entire populations are being subjected to propagandistic brainwashing. That scale is not happening in your example.