Remix.run Logo
declan_roberts 2 hours ago

What's with the bipartisan push for these bills all of a sudden?

lioeters 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's an international coordinated effort to undermine every single citizen's privacy, an agenda being pushed for years, again and again in every country and state, by a coalition including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc., corporations that profit greatly from mandatory identity verification online. It's only a matter of time until they buy out enough politicians to push it through and force future generations to live under their panopticon. Same with digitization of money.

randcraw 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That coordinated effort also includes the buying up of US media sources by billionaires and gigacorps to control the content of not just news sources and social forums, but every electronic window we have onto the world.

Remember, the panopticon observed people who were in a prison.

kelseyfrog an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I hate privacy, even down to the idea itself. I will buy out politicians, and push relentlessly until every trace of privacy is eliminated from the world. I love being watched. The idea of a panopticon makes me feel amazing and I want to force it on everyone until the end of time.

EvanAnderson 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'm reading your comment as sarcasm, but I do have a non-sarcastic hot take on it.

If we have to live in a panopticon I think access to the data should be available to everyone. That eliminates the power imbalance and/or makes the idea of the thing distasteful to powerful people who might actually try to restore privacy and eliminate the panopticon.

kelseyfrog 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

If those wish to preserve privacy want to be effective, there needs to be a pragmatism in understanding differing opinions. Reducing opponents to caricatures and fighting those is a losers strategy. It will guarantee defeat.

Being able to accurately articulate a position one doesn't possess themselves is necessary to effectively countering it.

hypercube33 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Power is then moved to whomever owns the most computer power and perhaps education

EvanAnderson 6 minutes ago | parent [-]

That's what it is now. Computing power is just a proxy for capital.

potsandpans 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> If we have to live in a panopticon...

So that's where we are now? "If we have to live in the torture nexus, let's at least make it equitable"

bee_rider 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I can see why people fall into the trap of calling for an equitable torment nexus: it is both cynical (it supposes everyone in power is corrupt and everyone at the top would oppose an equitable torment nexus) and also naive/optimistic (it supposes that we have any hope to actually impose an equitable torment nexus).

But I think the latter factor wins out, so we should just oppose obviously bad things in a non-clever fashion.

10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
kelseyfrog 3 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The fact that you couldn't identify it as sarcasm/satire is indictive of not having an accurate understanding of your opponents position. If you want to defeat your opponents, understand their calculus.

WarmWash an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People connect to the internet and do bad things (or have bad things happen to them)

They need to pay a service provider to have the capability to do bad things (or be exposed to bad things)

Why can't we just ask/compel the service provider to identify these people (or block the bad things).

For any politician the line of thinking will be something like that. It comes off as incredibly long hanging fruit that would have broad positive impact for the whole of society. Like the apple in the garden of eden, just walk over, take a bite, and you'll be a political hero without having to do much work at all.

Aurornis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It has reached the level of moral panic, so it’s the current topic everywhere.

Even on Hacker News, threads about children and social media or short form video will draw a lot of comments supporting harsh age restrictions, including an alarming number of extremist comments in favor banning under-18s from using the internet or phones.

It’s not until the discussion turns to implantation details that the sentiment swings firm negative. The average comment in favor of age restrictions hasn’t thought through what it would mean, they only assume that some mechanism will exist that only impacts children and/or sites they don’t care about.

As soon as the implantation details come out and everyone realizes that you can’t restrict children without first verifying everyone’s age or that “social media” includes Discord and other services they use, the outrage starts.

We’re now entering the phases where everyone realizes that these calls to action have consequences for everyone because there is no easy solution that automatically only impacts children.

Arainach an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's Meta: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b...

xienze an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not called a uniparty for nothing. Vote red, vote blue, we're all gonna end up in the same place eventually, the only difference is the timeline (pretty interesting that the first states pushing this stuff are California, Colorado, Illinois, etc. -- not exactly who you imagine being concerned with "think of the children", is it?). All the bickering between the two parties is pro wrestling kayfabe at the end of the day.