5 ms·

Anonymous people saying shitty things on 4chan is nothing compared to surveillance capitalism. If anyone regulates 4chan out of existence and declares victory,

Anonymous people saying shitty things on 4chan is nothing compared to surveillance capitalism. If anyone regulates 4chan out of existence and declares victory, they’ve missed the point.

shadowgovt 7y ago
What is the point they will have missed?
- antepodius 7y ago
  One argument might be that /pol/ might arguably be able to radicalise one or two people a year into a mass shooting, but that's not as bad as a worldwide technological panopticon. (It's not really a dichotomy, of course.)
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    radicalise one or two people a year into a mass shooting You undermine your point with such obvious counterfactuals. This is not in any way an endorsement of the panopticon - which is exactly what /pol/ wants, just with itself in middle.
    - antepodius 7y ago
      I don't know what you mean by that, sorry. Could you elaborate? I could read that as you either being charitable, or the opposite, towards /pol/.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  That trading liberty for safety usually yields neither.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Modern interpretations of that quote are way off the bead from the historical origin and intent of the original speaker. https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou... It's not unlike people misattributing the quote about the net, censorship, and damage to mean the internet, When it actually referred to USENET (a system that was, essentially, censored by collective action of internet service providers ceasing to store and forward its messages, some because they perceived it as obsolete, some because they believe they would have personal responsibility, morally if not legally, for the way people use the channel). The simplistic interpretation of the Franklin quote breaks down very quickly when one observes that most of the Founding Fathers agreed significantly with Locke's social contract theory, which is very much relinquishing individual, personal liberties for collective safety.
    - mc3 7y ago
      Thanks! Here is the meat: WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it. SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation. WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means. However this misunderstanding alone is not a reason on it's own to dismiss Ygg2's statement.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        I somewhat disagree. Without the assumed historical connotation of the quote, which as you have just indicated is incorrect, the thought itself (trading liberty for safety yields neither) is just false. It is simply one of the trades one must do in a stable society.

Anonymous people saying shitty things on 4chan is nothing compared to surveillance capitalism. If anyone regulates 4chan out of existence and declares victory, they’ve missed the point.

shadowgovt 7y ago

What is the point they will have missed?

antepodius 7y ago
One argument might be that /pol/ might arguably be able to radicalise one or two people a year into a mass shooting, but that's not as bad as a worldwide technological panopticon. (It's not really a dichotomy, of course.)
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  radicalise one or two people a year into a mass shooting You undermine your point with such obvious counterfactuals. This is not in any way an endorsement of the panopticon - which is exactly what /pol/ wants, just with itself in middle.
  - antepodius 7y ago
    I don't know what you mean by that, sorry. Could you elaborate? I could read that as you either being charitable, or the opposite, towards /pol/.
Ygg2 7y ago
That trading liberty for safety usually yields neither.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Modern interpretations of that quote are way off the bead from the historical origin and intent of the original speaker. https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou... It's not unlike people misattributing the quote about the net, censorship, and damage to mean the internet, When it actually referred to USENET (a system that was, essentially, censored by collective action of internet service providers ceasing to store and forward its messages, some because they perceived it as obsolete, some because they believe they would have personal responsibility, morally if not legally, for the way people use the channel). The simplistic interpretation of the Franklin quote breaks down very quickly when one observes that most of the Founding Fathers agreed significantly with Locke's social contract theory, which is very much relinquishing individual, personal liberties for collective safety.
  - mc3 7y ago
    Thanks! Here is the meat: WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it. SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation. WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means. However this misunderstanding alone is not a reason on it's own to dismiss Ygg2's statement.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      I somewhat disagree. Without the assumed historical connotation of the quote, which as you have just indicated is incorrect, the thought itself (trading liberty for safety yields neither) is just false. It is simply one of the trades one must do in a stable society.