I disagree. The definition of "bad actor" constantly changes. Something you do legally today can and will become illegal in the future, and if you don't change your ways, you will be a bad actor, too.

The people pushing for this under the guise of protecting children are the same people who went on The Island, or at least protect those who did. They never cared about children's safety.

The biggest criminals of all are the very same people pushing for these laws, this surveillance, this control. Don't be fooled.

▲

mrtksn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, the definition changes but whoever are the bad actors now create the desire to deal with them, which creates a motive or excuse to create or change systems for that. No matter how fair or unfair the treatment is, if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed.

	▲	kode-targz 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think I understand what you're trying to say in this comment, but if by: >if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed You mean some kind of resistance against tyrannical policies, then those "other means", if I understand what you're saying, are often illegal. True resistance that causes true societal change isn't parading the streets with signs or talking to your local representative. It's sabotage, vandalism, and in extreme cases, violence. True activism. The surveillance state's main goal is disrupting such initiatives before they can even get off the ground.