4 ms·

It is both the right and responsibility of every member of a civil society to make ethical judgments about what kind of society they want to create. Free speech

It is both the right and responsibility of every member of a civil society to make ethical judgments about what kind of society they want to create. Free speech is a means to achieve those ends, and not an end in itself.

SkyBelow 7y ago
It can be an end itself if you find that any limits are prone enough to corruption to not be tolerated. Take encryption. It is used for some of the most vile evil content that exists on the internet. But I support encryption because I know that any limits on it will soon be corrupted by those in power to use for reasons far less just than ending the aforementioned content. Thus I see enabling encryption as an end to itself regardless of how it is used because I see any society that does differently as inferior.
- sagichmal 7y ago
  > It can be an end itself if you find that any limits are prone enough to corruption to not be tolerated. I understand that some people see things that way. And I'm saying that it's an insufficient, naïve, and (in our zeitgeist) actually unethical position.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    With even first world governments engaging in significant censorship of harmful incidents, I would respond that anyone seeking to empower governments to limit freedom of speech is in the unethical position, and any trust in a government is naïve. How many more cover ups and incidents of government corruption are needed before we realize that centralizing violence is itself a bad thing and we should seek maximization of individual liberty?
    - sagichmal 7y ago
      > Anyone seeking to empower governments to limit freedom of speech is in the unethical position Government isn't separate from society, it is composed of society, and the voice with which a society enacts its will. If government is corrupt, the solution is to fix government, not strip government of its necessary and ethical power.
      - SkyBelow 7y ago
        >the solution is to fix government Yet around the world this solution has largely failed, especially as private entities with enough political power (and money, as these are often interchangeable) have learned how to exploit flaws in human psychology to for their advantage. Until we fix these issues the best option is to minimize the possible harm caused by minimizing the instances where we fine violence an acceptable option.
        sagichmal 7y ago
        > Yet around the world this solution has largely failed That's a cynic's worldview and it's one that I totally reject. Take your pessimism to a hole in the ground and wither yourself away there. Let those of us invested in the progress and future of humanity get on with our work.
        SkyBelow 7y ago
        >That's a cynic's worldview and it's one that I totally reject. Your rejection doesn't change the reality of how the word operates today. >Take your pessimism to a hole in the ground and wither yourself away there. Why? So others can continue to double down on failed policies that end up costing others? >Let those of us invested in the progress and future of humanity get on with our work. You see yourself as some benevolent being moving humanity forward but reject any criticism of the costs of your actions. You even immediately judge those who disagree with you as standing against humans, a tactic to dehumanize opposition instead of engaging with it. It is a dangerous mindset that has led to the deaths of tens of millions. Why not take a lesson from nature that shows that a single entity that tries to do it all is far less likely to survive the future that many separate entities that each find their niche?
        sagichmal 7y ago
        > You see yourself as some benevolent being moving humanity forward but reject any criticism of the costs of your actions. I reject specifically your criticism, the criticism of cynics. I (obviously) don't agree with your characterization of which policies are "failed policies that end up costing others" or "how the world operates". Humans are of nature but also possess the ethical and rational systems to rise above it. We're not bound by our natural impulses; on the contrary, our gifts oblige us to be better than them. Bluntly, I have no interest in living in a tribe with my Dunbar's number of tribespeople, organizing my thoughts and our policies under some presupposed limits of ambition. My ambition is boundless. So I say again, if you want to close ranks and subvert broad collective action and live in fear (or as you would say, some kind of steely-eyed realism) go dig a hole and do it well away from me. I've no interest in that moribund nihilism.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Sure, but if you reasonably suspect someone to possess such content in encrypted form, is there any moral problem with socially engineering them into giving up their private key?
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    Depends upon the extent of such actions. Throwing someone into prison until they give you a password they might not have is a problem. Wire tapping their phone after getting a warrant to see if they discuss the password with another person is not. Without a warrant is once again a problem.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Social engineering means tricking someone into revealing the information you want.

SkyBelow 7y ago

It can be an end itself if you find that any limits are prone enough to corruption to not be tolerated. Take encryption. It is used for some of the most vile evil content that exists on the internet. But I support encryption because I know that any limits on it will soon be corrupted by those in power to use for reasons far less just than ending the aforementioned content. Thus I see enabling encryption as an end to itself regardless of how it is used because I see any society that does differently as inferior.

sagichmal 7y ago
> It can be an end itself if you find that any limits are prone enough to corruption to not be tolerated. I understand that some people see things that way. And I'm saying that it's an insufficient, naïve, and (in our zeitgeist) actually unethical position.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  With even first world governments engaging in significant censorship of harmful incidents, I would respond that anyone seeking to empower governments to limit freedom of speech is in the unethical position, and any trust in a government is naïve. How many more cover ups and incidents of government corruption are needed before we realize that centralizing violence is itself a bad thing and we should seek maximization of individual liberty?
  - sagichmal 7y ago
    > Anyone seeking to empower governments to limit freedom of speech is in the unethical position Government isn't separate from society, it is composed of society, and the voice with which a society enacts its will. If government is corrupt, the solution is to fix government, not strip government of its necessary and ethical power.
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      >the solution is to fix government Yet around the world this solution has largely failed, especially as private entities with enough political power (and money, as these are often interchangeable) have learned how to exploit flaws in human psychology to for their advantage. Until we fix these issues the best option is to minimize the possible harm caused by minimizing the instances where we fine violence an acceptable option.
      - sagichmal 7y ago
        > Yet around the world this solution has largely failed That's a cynic's worldview and it's one that I totally reject. Take your pessimism to a hole in the ground and wither yourself away there. Let those of us invested in the progress and future of humanity get on with our work.
        SkyBelow 7y ago
        >That's a cynic's worldview and it's one that I totally reject. Your rejection doesn't change the reality of how the word operates today. >Take your pessimism to a hole in the ground and wither yourself away there. Why? So others can continue to double down on failed policies that end up costing others? >Let those of us invested in the progress and future of humanity get on with our work. You see yourself as some benevolent being moving humanity forward but reject any criticism of the costs of your actions. You even immediately judge those who disagree with you as standing against humans, a tactic to dehumanize opposition instead of engaging with it. It is a dangerous mindset that has led to the deaths of tens of millions. Why not take a lesson from nature that shows that a single entity that tries to do it all is far less likely to survive the future that many separate entities that each find their niche?
        sagichmal 7y ago
        > You see yourself as some benevolent being moving humanity forward but reject any criticism of the costs of your actions. I reject specifically your criticism, the criticism of cynics. I (obviously) don't agree with your characterization of which policies are "failed policies that end up costing others" or "how the world operates". Humans are of nature but also possess the ethical and rational systems to rise above it. We're not bound by our natural impulses; on the contrary, our gifts oblige us to be better than them. Bluntly, I have no interest in living in a tribe with my Dunbar's number of tribespeople, organizing my thoughts and our policies under some presupposed limits of ambition. My ambition is boundless. So I say again, if you want to close ranks and subvert broad collective action and live in fear (or as you would say, some kind of steely-eyed realism) go dig a hole and do it well away from me. I've no interest in that moribund nihilism.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Sure, but if you reasonably suspect someone to possess such content in encrypted form, is there any moral problem with socially engineering them into giving up their private key?
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Depends upon the extent of such actions. Throwing someone into prison until they give you a password they might not have is a problem. Wire tapping their phone after getting a warrant to see if they discuss the password with another person is not. Without a warrant is once again a problem.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Social engineering means tricking someone into revealing the information you want.