The "thick heads of congress" will see how you've been proven wrong in other comments, allowing them to follow their instinct to ignore arguments from people wh

The "thick heads of congress" will see how you've been proven wrong in other comments, allowing them to follow their instinct to ignore arguments from people who start with an ad hominem. You may think you're taking a strong stance for privacy and freedom. But anyone who isn't already in your corner, and sees reality through similarly myopic lenses, will only be put off by such blatantly obvious falsehoods. Technologist tend to follow some variation of the "law of the jungle": disagree with the FED's policies? Create a currency that follows no policy except the one dictated by its algorithm! In this endeavor, they commit two mistakes: (a) Confusing what is with what ought: the inability to do something, sometimes almost true (monetary policy for bitcoin), sometimes obviously false (two-key encryption), is used as an argument to shut down debate. (b) The refusal to meaningfully engage with any argument that is not narrowly about tech. They believe any such arguments aren't "objective", and that they can sidestep it with technology. Yet this fails to see that of course every algorithm or other technology is the child of ideology by just another name. In doing so, technologists usurp powers that aren't theirs: if the gold standard is the better monetary policy, you're supposed convince enough people to get Rand Paul elected president. Yes, politics is deeply frustrating, because everyone is just wrong, all the time. But it's still a much better decision-making process than five techbros in china noticing their hashrate has made them king.