6 ms·
We'll have to create a public and a second, private, personality just like in the old days of the police state. Society is more open than it probably was ever
by std_throwaway 9y ago
We'll have to create a public and a second, private, personality just like in the old days of the police state.
Society is more open than it probably was ever before but at the same time, if close minded leaders of fascist political or religious color came into power they'd have their tools handed to them to create an oppressive apparatus never seen before.
- pyroinferno 9y ago>We'll have to create a public and a second, private, personality I thought this was always the case.
- frank_nitti 9y agoIf HRC is any indication...
- maxerickson 9y agoProbably even more than 2.
- lclarkmichalek 9y ago> The students in the spinoff group exchanged memes and images “mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust and the deaths of children,” sometimes directing jokes at specific ethnic or racial groups, the Crimson reported. One message “called the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child ‘piñata time’” while other messages quipped that “abusing children was sexually arousing,” according to images of the chat described by the Crimson. You know, if that's your personality, I'm OK with you feeling ashamed enough that you feel the need to keep it private.
- std_throwaway 9y agoI don't care what they said. If it's against the law, let the law deal with it. If it's covered under freedom of speech, let them speak.
- nsgoetz 9y agoNo one is stoping them from speaking. Harvard just doesn't want them if those are the things they have to say
- vertex-four 9y agoSure, they can speak. I can then use my right to freedom of association to not associate with them. Is that right not as important?
- Karunamon 9y agoA different set of ethical/legal calculus comes into play when we're talking about a college that gets federal funds.
- bryondowd 9y agoNobody is stopping them from speaking. Doesn't mean everyone else isn't free to choose not to associate with them. That includes organizations.
- std_throwaway 9y agoSo they can keep out everyone they don't really like by an arbitrary set of rules? Maybe you spit out chewing gum somewhere one night and violated the rule of not spitting for one example. I'm not saying that these students are good people or that I endorse anything they said. I'm defending the right of privacy and free speech for anyone at any time.
- drak0n1c 9y agoI think the OP was observing that the development of an apparatus for monitoring and transferring communication logs to decision makers is a tool that can and will be abused by future authorities, regardless of whether they are doing right or wrong.
- tdb7893 9y agoI don't think it's ever really been okay to say horrible things in public and have no reprecussions. I'm pretty sure that if someone could prove that you had said these things at most points in history the acceptance would be rescinded. I think a lot of it is that with the internet it's much easier for people to find out about these sorts of things.
- jswny 9y agoI don't think a private Facebook chat counts as "in public." Yes, it is much easier to find out about this kind of stuff because of Facebook but that doesn't mean that there is no expectation of privacy at all.
- wvenable 9y agoOr one just have to accept that actions have consequences. This has always been true and, like everything else, computers haven't changed anything they've just made it more efficient.