4 ms·

AFAIK in Hungary you can't just put out your camera pointing to the street and start recording indefinitely. You can apply for permission though. I don't know w

by leni536 11y ago

AFAIK in Hungary you can't just put out your camera pointing to the street and start recording indefinitely. You can apply for permission though. I don't know what's the case with actively going out with a camera and streaming, I would definitely not do that on a political event though even if it's legal.

skbohra123 11y ago
Not everything has to be done following the rules, sometimes the best things come out when you don't care about the rules.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nl 11y ago
As others have said, legal restrictions on broadcasting political events have dubious morality. I can't judge your specific circumstances, but I can say how much I admire the people involved in the highly illegal activities of the 1967 writer's conference[1] that was at least partially responsible for the Prague Spring. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring#1967_Writers.27_Congress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring#1967_Writers.2...
- leni536 11y ago
  > legal restrictions on broadcasting political events have dubious morality. Well I do not doubt this. However voluntarily documenting that you were there could hit back decades later. It's hard to predict the political situation in the far future even if you have a pretty good democratic setting in the present.
  - duggan 11y ago
    If you limit your speech based on a speculative Orwellian autocracy, you are already living in your own personal one.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Don't tell Roko's Basilisk.
      - drdeca 11y ago
        That actually is a very close analogue, isn't it. Nearly exact I think. Only difference being the thing being created is a government system instead of an AI, and the torture is done physically, instead of to a simulation. And really, if one accepts the idea of a simulation of oneself as being oneself, then the govt/ai distinction is, I think, mainly decoration at that point. Hm.
        wiml 11y ago
        I think the analogy is pretty good. I've used the political example as a way to think about Roko's basilisk without the extropian/singularity mysticism that attaches to the original formulation. Recast, you could say: At some point within your natural lifetime, a brutal dictator will probably arise in the world (because, let's face it, horrific despotry is a recurring theme in human affairs). Clearly, any such dictator will want to punish people who did not help their rise to power by putting them in torture camps. Therefore, it is your only rational option to seek out the most brutal, repressive tyrant you can find and help them gain power. Any other action would be foolish! While that sounds kind of absurd, people do act on it. People assume that there will always be a neighborhood bully, a local crime boss, an exploitive employer, and so they try to get on the good side of the inevitable by gravitating to the most ruthless (and therefore most likely to overpower the others).

by leni536 11y ago

skbohra123 11y ago

Not everything has to be done following the rules, sometimes the best things come out when you don't care about the rules.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nl 11y ago

As others have said, legal restrictions on broadcasting political events have dubious morality. I can't judge your specific circumstances, but I can say how much I admire the people involved in the highly illegal activities of the 1967 writer's conference[1] that was at least partially responsible for the Prague Spring. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring#1967_Writers.27_Congress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring#1967_Writers.2...

leni536 11y ago
> legal restrictions on broadcasting political events have dubious morality. Well I do not doubt this. However voluntarily documenting that you were there could hit back decades later. It's hard to predict the political situation in the far future even if you have a pretty good democratic setting in the present.
- duggan 11y ago
  If you limit your speech based on a speculative Orwellian autocracy, you are already living in your own personal one.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Don't tell Roko's Basilisk.
    - drdeca 11y ago
      That actually is a very close analogue, isn't it. Nearly exact I think. Only difference being the thing being created is a government system instead of an AI, and the torture is done physically, instead of to a simulation. And really, if one accepts the idea of a simulation of oneself as being oneself, then the govt/ai distinction is, I think, mainly decoration at that point. Hm.
      - wiml 11y ago
        I think the analogy is pretty good. I've used the political example as a way to think about Roko's basilisk without the extropian/singularity mysticism that attaches to the original formulation. Recast, you could say: At some point within your natural lifetime, a brutal dictator will probably arise in the world (because, let's face it, horrific despotry is a recurring theme in human affairs). Clearly, any such dictator will want to punish people who did not help their rise to power by putting them in torture camps. Therefore, it is your only rational option to seek out the most brutal, repressive tyrant you can find and help them gain power. Any other action would be foolish! While that sounds kind of absurd, people do act on it. People assume that there will always be a neighborhood bully, a local crime boss, an exploitive employer, and so they try to get on the good side of the inevitable by gravitating to the most ruthless (and therefore most likely to overpower the others).