4 ms·

> So it shouldn't really be necessary to have any of these arguments based on speculated future scenarios when you can look to Canada, the UK, Australia, etc, a

by JadeNB 5y ago

> So it shouldn't really be necessary to have any of these arguments based on speculated future scenarios when you can look to Canada, the UK, Australia, etc, and see that slight increases in surveillance, censorship, gun regulation, health care availability, etc might actually have some benefits and certainly don't necessarily put you in the instant quicksand toward fascism/communism/scary scenario X. There are a lot of benefits to living in countries with different governance approaches from the in many ways ultra-laissez faire approach taken in the US, but I don't think you'll find many takers here for the idea that the physical and internet surveillance of the UK and Australia are a model to which to look forward.

mikepurvis 5y ago
Oh I know. I'm being downvoted to oblivion already— that's the reality of HN being US-centric (I'm Canadian). But my point is less about taking a stand on any of one of those issues and more just that US-based advocates making slippery-slope arguments often resort to wide-eyed speculation about the future rather than evidence because they're unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge what the realities are elsewhere in the world.
namdnay 5y ago
To play devils advocate for a bit, London is an incredibly safe city at night compared to say Paris or Rome or Madrid or Amsterdam. I’m pretty sure part of that is down to the staggering amount of cameras
- anthk 5y ago
  How is Madrid unsafe? Have you even been there? As if London didn't have its own and huge pack of chavs...
  - mikepurvis 5y ago
    I was in Madrid a few years ago— it was just for a weekend conference, but my flight was 12h delayed leaving, so I ended up getting a pretty long unplanned walk around the city. I felt very safe there, though I think the biggest thing was how insanely courteous the motorists were. Compared to North America where even when the signal is on your side you have to watch for a gap in turning cars and dart across the street, in Madrid I would just be walking up to a crosswalk and cars would already be voluntarily coming to a complete stop to wait for me to begin and then fully finish crossing. Night and day difference.
- chrismcb 5y ago
  I've traveled the world, the place I felt the least safe was London. Perhaps it was because they have signs all over the place warning you about pickpockets.
- Tepix 5y ago
  Source?
- int_19h 5y ago
  Conversely, if you actually do get attacked in London, you better be real careful to not accidentally hurt your attacker: "There are products which squirt a relatively safe, brightly coloured dye (as opposed to a pepper spray). A properly designed product of this nature, used in the way it is intended, should not be able to cause an injury. However, if injury does occur, this may be assault. ... The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. " (https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm)
  - trasz 5y ago
    Not true. What is true that you cannot use products designed to hurt, ie weapons.
    - voakbasda 5y ago
      So pepper spray would be illegal? That’s insane.
      - JadeNB 5y ago
        It looks like they explicitly call out pepper spray in your GP's quote (emphasis mine): > There are products which squirt a relatively safe, brightly coloured dye (as opposed to a pepper spray).
      - int_19h 5y ago
        It is an illegal "offensive weapon", yes. The way UK defines "offensive weapon", literally anything is one if you have intent to use it against somebody, even in self-defense: "any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person ... even if they have some other legitimate use e.g. car keys held between the knuckles" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon#England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon#England_and_W...)
      - trasz 5y ago
        It is illegal. It probably does sound insane if you believe that carrying weapons can improve safety and not simply escalate violence. To me it’s a pretty sound policy.
abraae 5y ago
> I don't think you'll find many takers here for the idea that the physical and internet surveillance of the UK and Australia are a model to which to look forward. Given the binary choice I would rather have the surveillance instead of the outrage-driven anti-science hordes that have been empowered by those US gifts to society Facebook and Twitter.
- stevenicr 5y ago
  Not a fan of binary choices myself, I'd like to consider these options: 1 - everyone believes every single thing they see on fbk feed. 2 - everyone is well versed in how to highlight, one-click / tap search ggle,ddg, bing - for more info about highlighted thing (taught how to determine what a good source is). See, the first way can work mostly, but many problems emerge in short while. The second way empowers people to think before acting and to learn more and not buy what X is selling automatically. (I have witnessed first hand the damage done by 'fact checking' on fbook - people 100 believe a false post because fbk has not labled it as misinfo - for three days)
  - mikepurvis 5y ago
    At this point, there is a sizable population who has internalized the message that "MSM == lies", like, it has to come from some guy's garage YouTube channel for it to be credible. So yes, there's an issue with people not knowing what a "good source" is, but it's hard to know how much education could inoculated this population to a message like that. Especially when in many cases it was a treadmill of Fox News telling people that CNN is lies, and then OAN and Newsmax telling them that Fox is lies, and then internet sources telling them that anything on TV is lies. The thrill was never the truth; the thrill was in thinking you were getting some kind of unique insider scoop.
- anthk 5y ago
  >have been empowered by those US gifts to society Facebook and Twitter. Hope you are kidding to us... FB and Twtr are huge turds full of anti-science mobs composed anti-vaxxers sharing fake news everywhere. There is more science in all the IRC and Usenet subnets today than in the whole FB network...

by JadeNB 5y ago

mikepurvis 5y ago

Oh I know. I'm being downvoted to oblivion already— that's the reality of HN being US-centric (I'm Canadian). But my point is less about taking a stand on any of one of those issues and more just that US-based advocates making slippery-slope arguments often resort to wide-eyed speculation about the future rather than evidence because they're unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge what the realities are elsewhere in the world.

namdnay 5y ago

To play devils advocate for a bit, London is an incredibly safe city at night compared to say Paris or Rome or Madrid or Amsterdam. I’m pretty sure part of that is down to the staggering amount of cameras

anthk 5y ago
How is Madrid unsafe? Have you even been there? As if London didn't have its own and huge pack of chavs...
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  I was in Madrid a few years ago— it was just for a weekend conference, but my flight was 12h delayed leaving, so I ended up getting a pretty long unplanned walk around the city. I felt very safe there, though I think the biggest thing was how insanely courteous the motorists were. Compared to North America where even when the signal is on your side you have to watch for a gap in turning cars and dart across the street, in Madrid I would just be walking up to a crosswalk and cars would already be voluntarily coming to a complete stop to wait for me to begin and then fully finish crossing. Night and day difference.
chrismcb 5y ago
I've traveled the world, the place I felt the least safe was London. Perhaps it was because they have signs all over the place warning you about pickpockets.
Tepix 5y ago
Source?
int_19h 5y ago
Conversely, if you actually do get attacked in London, you better be real careful to not accidentally hurt your attacker: "There are products which squirt a relatively safe, brightly coloured dye (as opposed to a pepper spray). A properly designed product of this nature, used in the way it is intended, should not be able to cause an injury. However, if injury does occur, this may be assault. ... The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. " (https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm)
- trasz 5y ago
  Not true. What is true that you cannot use products designed to hurt, ie weapons.
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    So pepper spray would be illegal? That’s insane.
    - JadeNB 5y ago
      It looks like they explicitly call out pepper spray in your GP's quote (emphasis mine): > There are products which squirt a relatively safe, brightly coloured dye (as opposed to a pepper spray).
    - int_19h 5y ago
      It is an illegal "offensive weapon", yes. The way UK defines "offensive weapon", literally anything is one if you have intent to use it against somebody, even in self-defense: "any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person ... even if they have some other legitimate use e.g. car keys held between the knuckles" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon#England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon#England_and_W...)
    - trasz 5y ago
      It is illegal. It probably does sound insane if you believe that carrying weapons can improve safety and not simply escalate violence. To me it’s a pretty sound policy.

abraae 5y ago

> I don't think you'll find many takers here for the idea that the physical and internet surveillance of the UK and Australia are a model to which to look forward. Given the binary choice I would rather have the surveillance instead of the outrage-driven anti-science hordes that have been empowered by those US gifts to society Facebook and Twitter.

stevenicr 5y ago
Not a fan of binary choices myself, I'd like to consider these options: 1 - everyone believes every single thing they see on fbk feed. 2 - everyone is well versed in how to highlight, one-click / tap search ggle,ddg, bing - for more info about highlighted thing (taught how to determine what a good source is). See, the first way can work mostly, but many problems emerge in short while. The second way empowers people to think before acting and to learn more and not buy what X is selling automatically. (I have witnessed first hand the damage done by 'fact checking' on fbook - people 100 believe a false post because fbk has not labled it as misinfo - for three days)
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  At this point, there is a sizable population who has internalized the message that "MSM == lies", like, it has to come from some guy's garage YouTube channel for it to be credible. So yes, there's an issue with people not knowing what a "good source" is, but it's hard to know how much education could inoculated this population to a message like that. Especially when in many cases it was a treadmill of Fox News telling people that CNN is lies, and then OAN and Newsmax telling them that Fox is lies, and then internet sources telling them that anything on TV is lies. The thrill was never the truth; the thrill was in thinking you were getting some kind of unique insider scoop.
anthk 5y ago
>have been empowered by those US gifts to society Facebook and Twitter. Hope you are kidding to us... FB and Twtr are huge turds full of anti-science mobs composed anti-vaxxers sharing fake news everywhere. There is more science in all the IRC and Usenet subnets today than in the whole FB network...