4 ms·

Better government and better security are not mutually exclusive. You can work towards both simultaneously, and claiming that one negates the other is a logical

Better government and better security are not mutually exclusive. You can work towards both simultaneously, and claiming that one negates the other is a logical fallacy.

knobcore 6y ago
Government exists solely for the purpose of negating security and life of bad actors who want to take away your rights. That is it's function, via the social contract. That can only be broken in one of two ways. Either people don't care enough or they grow so distrustful of it that they don't participate in it or keep it in check. When things like that happen you get elected officials decided by less than 40% of the country, anti-maskers, and asymmetric warfare in the streets to combat "the man". It's untenable.
glitcher 6y ago
And actually, the latest xkcd says it better than me: https://xkcd.com/2368/ https://xkcd.com/2368/
- knobcore 6y ago
  I see heavy security with zero recourse by anyone to break it and anonymity is the top single problem with the Internet, not the lack of it. We should all have to log on with our identification through a blanket "know your customer" law like they do to combat money laundering in banks, and our country of origin at least should be displayed. Other than that... You want encryption? Fine, but if your id links you to 4chan offshoots planning domestic terror attacks i should be able to report your address to the authorities and there should be social repercussions for bad behavior. And I need to know if you're Russian or from the US and that you're human before I engage in US politics with you. Music got worse since Napster, Sean Parker was the guy who got Zuckerberg funded, Google is evil, and John Perry Barlow is dead. Wake up.
  - glitcher 6y ago
    I respectfully disagree with most of this. The last part was a bit all over the place though, not sure where exactly you were going. Others who know history much better than me are far better equipped to debate against your position. If you really want a challenge, I would invite you to reply to the top comment in this thread by Jon_Lowtek to help open a discussion on the deeper merits of your position. For me personally, your arguments aren't very persuasive.
    - knobcore 6y ago
      I'm saying that the big giant corporations and the giant governments we used to fight against died or became completely ineffective to do their jobs and the only thing that happened was giant corporations took their place that are far more unethical than what they replaced... Funded and led by the same people who were once the underdogs! I am aware of history as much to know that the Internet was designed by a bunch of people who talked on Ham radio and wanted a secure place to sell drugs to each other without being caught by the fuzz. They hated Ma' Bell. That's why it's designed the way it is. Then later it became the RIAA and the rest. I know all of that and if anything that's hardened my position on this, not decreased it. We don't live in the 1960s or the 1990s anymore, and what's worse is everything the people said during that time about how society would be if we went "full retard' into "fight the man" hipsterism and the subsequent deregulation of everything actually happened. Nobody laughs at Al Gore or Tipper these days, or Lars Ulrich for that matter. Do you like musicians making a penny on a song leaving no room for art just lowest common denominator crap, the rise of the marxist/fascist camps that are hurling what was once a promising country that was getting over it's growing pains straight into 1920s/30s Germany at lighting speed, the totally unfiltered and unmoderated filth that is 4chan, etc? Or do you just ignore it because "some day blah blah blah dictator might take control" yet we are the closest we have ever been to a dictatorship because of faceless social manipulation technique where we have no clue who or where anyone we talk to is, whether they're paid, etc? Not everyone is an engineer out looking for how things work. It's the same error the founding fathers made with the enlightenment thinking everyone is going to become smarter if you just opened everything up. It's complete baloney, people will just use the power vacuum to seize it for themselves because they make the most noise. Nobody cared about Aaron Swartz except the hacker community. Snowden sold out to the Russians from the beginning. And you're sitting there still in the year 2000 when all this stuff was new and the only ones who spoke were nerds and we all agreed on basically everything. The point is that everything that this theory set out to solve, became worse. More nationalistic, more poor musicians with even bigger giant platforms controlling their art, more corrupt, more propagandized, etc. Not less. Everyone knows it. The other point is that instead of tearing stuff down and engaging in subversive activities for the same ends, maybe it's time to focus on making the systems you have better. Not turn it into some weird mix of The Matrix, Philip K. Dick, and William Gibson. They're just as bad of an instruction manual as 1984 was to be honest.

Better government and better security are not mutually exclusive. You can work towards both simultaneously, and claiming that one negates the other is a logical fallacy.

knobcore 6y ago

Government exists solely for the purpose of negating security and life of bad actors who want to take away your rights. That is it's function, via the social contract. That can only be broken in one of two ways. Either people don't care enough or they grow so distrustful of it that they don't participate in it or keep it in check. When things like that happen you get elected officials decided by less than 40% of the country, anti-maskers, and asymmetric warfare in the streets to combat "the man". It's untenable.

glitcher 6y ago

And actually, the latest xkcd says it better than me: https://xkcd.com/2368/ https://xkcd.com/2368/

knobcore 6y ago
I see heavy security with zero recourse by anyone to break it and anonymity is the top single problem with the Internet, not the lack of it. We should all have to log on with our identification through a blanket "know your customer" law like they do to combat money laundering in banks, and our country of origin at least should be displayed. Other than that... You want encryption? Fine, but if your id links you to 4chan offshoots planning domestic terror attacks i should be able to report your address to the authorities and there should be social repercussions for bad behavior. And I need to know if you're Russian or from the US and that you're human before I engage in US politics with you. Music got worse since Napster, Sean Parker was the guy who got Zuckerberg funded, Google is evil, and John Perry Barlow is dead. Wake up.
- glitcher 6y ago
  I respectfully disagree with most of this. The last part was a bit all over the place though, not sure where exactly you were going. Others who know history much better than me are far better equipped to debate against your position. If you really want a challenge, I would invite you to reply to the top comment in this thread by Jon_Lowtek to help open a discussion on the deeper merits of your position. For me personally, your arguments aren't very persuasive.
  - knobcore 6y ago
    I'm saying that the big giant corporations and the giant governments we used to fight against died or became completely ineffective to do their jobs and the only thing that happened was giant corporations took their place that are far more unethical than what they replaced... Funded and led by the same people who were once the underdogs! I am aware of history as much to know that the Internet was designed by a bunch of people who talked on Ham radio and wanted a secure place to sell drugs to each other without being caught by the fuzz. They hated Ma' Bell. That's why it's designed the way it is. Then later it became the RIAA and the rest. I know all of that and if anything that's hardened my position on this, not decreased it. We don't live in the 1960s or the 1990s anymore, and what's worse is everything the people said during that time about how society would be if we went "full retard' into "fight the man" hipsterism and the subsequent deregulation of everything actually happened. Nobody laughs at Al Gore or Tipper these days, or Lars Ulrich for that matter. Do you like musicians making a penny on a song leaving no room for art just lowest common denominator crap, the rise of the marxist/fascist camps that are hurling what was once a promising country that was getting over it's growing pains straight into 1920s/30s Germany at lighting speed, the totally unfiltered and unmoderated filth that is 4chan, etc? Or do you just ignore it because "some day blah blah blah dictator might take control" yet we are the closest we have ever been to a dictatorship because of faceless social manipulation technique where we have no clue who or where anyone we talk to is, whether they're paid, etc? Not everyone is an engineer out looking for how things work. It's the same error the founding fathers made with the enlightenment thinking everyone is going to become smarter if you just opened everything up. It's complete baloney, people will just use the power vacuum to seize it for themselves because they make the most noise. Nobody cared about Aaron Swartz except the hacker community. Snowden sold out to the Russians from the beginning. And you're sitting there still in the year 2000 when all this stuff was new and the only ones who spoke were nerds and we all agreed on basically everything. The point is that everything that this theory set out to solve, became worse. More nationalistic, more poor musicians with even bigger giant platforms controlling their art, more corrupt, more propagandized, etc. Not less. Everyone knows it. The other point is that instead of tearing stuff down and engaging in subversive activities for the same ends, maybe it's time to focus on making the systems you have better. Not turn it into some weird mix of The Matrix, Philip K. Dick, and William Gibson. They're just as bad of an instruction manual as 1984 was to be honest.