3 ms·

IDK, is it? "Speeding tickets can catch up to you..." Those only "catch up to you" if you're not paying them. INAL, but I'm not sure there's many situations whe

by moate 8y ago

IDK, is it? "Speeding tickets can catch up to you..." Those only "catch up to you" if you're not paying them. INAL, but I'm not sure there's many situations where having paid speeding tickets is affecting your life that greatly (unless you're trying to commit insurance fraud by misrepresenting your past). Again, I get the idea that there are people who are failed by the system and the way they're forced to right this wrong is by pretending to be someone new. I'm not even opposed to the idea! But OP is doing a terrible selling the idea to people who aren't on board by framing it that way. I don't even think you need to pointedly obtuse to construe his statement the way I did. If you're going to say "this tool is helpful because the system itself is problematic and possibly corrupted to the point that in the near future the best solution is to circumvent the system rather than reforming it" you need to work pretty hard to pitch that to a mainstream crowd. Edited addendum: While OP didn't say they want the ability to commit crimes, it took about 20 minutes before a different poster literally said he did, so the intent/desire is out there and pretty obvious.

whatshisface 8y ago
>Edited addendum: While OP didn't say they want the ability to commit crimes, it took about 20 minutes before a different poster literally said he did, so the intent/desire is out there and pretty obvious. Moate, I checked your profile, but I don't see your name or address. I shudder to imagine the obvious intent/desire that implies. I question whether or not society will stand once the reign of terror you are planning has run its course.
- moate 8y ago
  Yeesh. Pretty far leap from my observation that someone literally stated they welcome this technology because it allows them to commit crimes (They said this, it's in the thread, go look it up) and my lack of identifying information. I'll take it that I may have misconstrued the OP intent. Might have clutched my pearls a bit too quickly. However... I think it's naive to think that certain technology doesn't enable criminal behavior. Cash currency is one such technology. It's much more difficult to trace than online money, and is thus preferred by certain criminal elements. It's also perfectly reasonable to say that we shouldn't outlaw cash because it's used by criminals. There's tons of legitimate reasons why people would want and prefer cash. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and all that. I accept that crimes will be committed. But it's a horrible marketing choice to list it as a selling point/advantage to your technology. I'm fine with this facial amalgam stuff. I think being anon is great! But maybe hyping the "Finally I can do all this illegal shit I've been held back from due to evil oversight" isn't the right choice?
c22 8y ago
Sure, I get where you're coming from, and I'm not even positive I disagree with your underlying stance. I do think "getting out of some speeding tickets" is pretty tame on the list of heinous crimes one could appear to condone. The OP is clearly citing wild stories their dad has told them about escaping one's (his?) past and then putting forth their own lament for the erosion of anonymity and deniability. The fact is, the original poster wrote: > I hope more of this AI stuff takes off and we get some of that deniability anonymity back. I truly do think the Internet was an awesome landscape when people could express themselves openly and feel they were truly anonymous. which you paraphrased as: > "I'm glad I'm able to create a more believable fake identity online so I can commit crimes and not get busted!" and > "I want to be able to create a fake identity online... in order to evade the law while I commit crimes, or escape the law after my past crimes." which is clearly a hyperbolic extension of the original argument. Also, the only person I see literally ascribing this intent to the OP is you, so I can only assume you are arguing in bad faith.
- moate 8y ago
  It really wasn't! I'll fully admit I may have gone a bit ad absurdum but that's not bad faith. A lack of other people willing to jump in on this doesn't mean anything other than people aren't jumping in. I'll admit that I may have been inferring something that wasn't there for OP. I still feel the points I'm bringing up are valid, but attempting to place these feelings on OP involves a bit of a stretch of his phrasing.

by moate 8y ago

whatshisface 8y ago

>Edited addendum: While OP didn't say they want the ability to commit crimes, it took about 20 minutes before a different poster literally said he did, so the intent/desire is out there and pretty obvious. Moate, I checked your profile, but I don't see your name or address. I shudder to imagine the obvious intent/desire that implies. I question whether or not society will stand once the reign of terror you are planning has run its course.

moate 8y ago
Yeesh. Pretty far leap from my observation that someone literally stated they welcome this technology because it allows them to commit crimes (They said this, it's in the thread, go look it up) and my lack of identifying information. I'll take it that I may have misconstrued the OP intent. Might have clutched my pearls a bit too quickly. However... I think it's naive to think that certain technology doesn't enable criminal behavior. Cash currency is one such technology. It's much more difficult to trace than online money, and is thus preferred by certain criminal elements. It's also perfectly reasonable to say that we shouldn't outlaw cash because it's used by criminals. There's tons of legitimate reasons why people would want and prefer cash. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and all that. I accept that crimes will be committed. But it's a horrible marketing choice to list it as a selling point/advantage to your technology. I'm fine with this facial amalgam stuff. I think being anon is great! But maybe hyping the "Finally I can do all this illegal shit I've been held back from due to evil oversight" isn't the right choice?

c22 8y ago

Sure, I get where you're coming from, and I'm not even positive I disagree with your underlying stance. I do think "getting out of some speeding tickets" is pretty tame on the list of heinous crimes one could appear to condone. The OP is clearly citing wild stories their dad has told them about escaping one's (his?) past and then putting forth their own lament for the erosion of anonymity and deniability. The fact is, the original poster wrote: > I hope more of this AI stuff takes off and we get some of that deniability anonymity back. I truly do think the Internet was an awesome landscape when people could express themselves openly and feel they were truly anonymous. which you paraphrased as: > "I'm glad I'm able to create a more believable fake identity online so I can commit crimes and not get busted!" and > "I want to be able to create a fake identity online... in order to evade the law while I commit crimes, or escape the law after my past crimes." which is clearly a hyperbolic extension of the original argument. Also, the only person I see literally ascribing this intent to the OP is you, so I can only assume you are arguing in bad faith.

moate 8y ago
It really wasn't! I'll fully admit I may have gone a bit ad absurdum but that's not bad faith. A lack of other people willing to jump in on this doesn't mean anything other than people aren't jumping in. I'll admit that I may have been inferring something that wasn't there for OP. I still feel the points I'm bringing up are valid, but attempting to place these feelings on OP involves a bit of a stretch of his phrasing.