I suppose I could respond in a point-by-point way, but I think that we're engaging from very different frames and so it might help to establish some shared grou

I suppose I could respond in a point-by-point way, but I think that we're engaging from very different frames and so it might help to establish some shared ground. What sources of knowledge do you generally trust for finding methods to approach problems that you don't know how to solve? Do you believe that "harm reduction" approaches (i.e. making bad outcomes less likely though still possible) are useful? >I'm not sure you should criticise others for hiding the ball or being dishonest when phrasing it like that. I did not say anyone was being dishonest and if you think I am being dishonest I would appreciate you pointing out how I am being so. I suppose I do want to say that paper and ink and radio have all been used for ethnic cleansing and the US treats the sale of military radio equipment as the sale of weapons[0]. There is a lot of history of sanctioning those who provide groups engaged in immoral acts with mundane equipment. If a warlord is using Facebook to help execute a genocide I do think it's a good idea to pressure Facebook to kick them off Facebook. I'm kind of surprised you think it isn't? Though I could be misreading what you've said. If that is the case I apologize. [0] https://www.nknews.org/2017/03/what-the-glocom-scandal-tells-us-about-the-n-korean-militarys-new-capabilities/ https://www.nknews.org/2017/03/what-the-glocom-scandal-tells...