5 ms·

The implication of expressing a concern is that it is related to what is being done. Otherwise why post it here? I doubt you’d claim that your ‘concern’ is ir

by zepto 5y ago

The implication of expressing a concern is that it is related to what is being done. Otherwise why post it here? I doubt you’d claim that your ‘concern’ is irrelevant to this topic. It’s an innuendo intended to imply a likelyhood of future wrongdoing. It works like this: ‘What guarantee do we have that he won’t hit his wife after we leave?’ Obviously this is a way of suggesting that the man will hit his wife, phrased as a question to facilitate the same kind of denial that you are using here.

jjulius 5y ago
>The implication of expressing a concern is that it is related to what is being done. … duh? I never said it wasn’t related, I said that it’s not a criticism of the current program. >Otherwise why post it here? I doubt you’d claim that your ‘concern’ is irrelevant to this topic. Correct! >It’s an innuendo intended to imply a likelyhood of future wrongdoing. No, it’s intended to state clearly - not imply - a concern around whether or not Apple will be pressured by other bodies to begin scanning on-device content for hashes pertaining to subjects beyond child abuse. The question is simple - what guarantee do we have that Apple won’t expand what kind of content they scan for? What is so difficult to grasp about that, and why do you, it seems, feel that that is an entirely irrelevant question that isn’t worth discussing, answering or being concerned about? >It works like this: ‘What guarantee do we have that he won’t hit his wife after we leave?’ >Obviously this is a way of suggesting that the man will hit his wife, phrased as a question to facilitate the same kind of denial that you are using here. You leave and hope that he doesn’t, but would you never follow up with your friends to see how they’re doing after a domestic altercation, to make sure it hasn’t happened again and that they’re safe from harm? What is so wrong about being aware of possibilities and remaining vigilant?
- zepto 5y ago
  > You leave and hope that he doesn’t You’re both proving the point. Nobody said the man had done anything wrong, and yet you are assuming he did simply because someone asked a question and recommending that people act on this false impression. That is exactly the goal of innuendo.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    Your scenario around leaving and whether or not the man will hit his wife was flawed from the start. Given the context of this broader conversation - Apple implementing a new photo-scanning system - one assumes that with the way you left the beginning of your scenario open to interpretation/assumption, that you are leaving after he's already hit his wife (in this case, Apple implementing the CSAM scanning) and hoping he doesn't do it again (Apple scanning for different content in the future). You would do well to better set up your hypothetical scenario next time, perhaps clarifying that you haven't actually witnessed any violence firsthand prior to your departure. But again, since you continue to avoid what I'm asking: >The question is simple - what guarantee do we have that Apple won’t expand what kind of content they scan for? What is so difficult to grasp about that, and why do you, it seems, feel that that is an entirely irrelevant question that isn’t worth discussing, answering or being concerned about? and perhaps more curiously >What is so wrong about being aware of possibilities and remaining vigilant?
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Your scenario around leaving and whether or not the man will hit his wife was flawed from the start My scenario never said anything about ‘leaving’. You continue to confirm the point. You read that in to the scenario. That’s the point. You completely failed to understand the scenario as written and made up your own story to suit your prejudices. The only violence was in your imagination. What guarantee do we have that you aren’t doing the same thing with Apple?
      - jjulius 5y ago
        >My scenario never said anything about ‘leaving’. LOL, surely you jest: >It works like this: ‘What guarantee do we have that he won’t hit his wife after we leave?’ At this point, after continuously misinterpreting my posts (almost intentionally, as though you're arguing in bad faith), you've effectively moved on to gaslighting, so I'm just going to continue to reiterate the same questions I have been posting, which you continue to avoid answering. Carry on as you have been if you want, but this is about all you'll get from me moving forward until you answer them directly. - Apple has decided to scan for a specific kind of content on their phones, what guarantee do we have that they won't scan for other content in the future? - For someone who commented, "stand up for civil liberties now", why are you so opposed to people being aware of possibilities and remaining vigilant?

by zepto 5y ago

jjulius 5y ago

>The implication of expressing a concern is that it is related to what is being done. … duh? I never said it wasn’t related, I said that it’s not a criticism of the current program. >Otherwise why post it here? I doubt you’d claim that your ‘concern’ is irrelevant to this topic. Correct! >It’s an innuendo intended to imply a likelyhood of future wrongdoing. No, it’s intended to state clearly - not imply - a concern around whether or not Apple will be pressured by other bodies to begin scanning on-device content for hashes pertaining to subjects beyond child abuse. The question is simple - what guarantee do we have that Apple won’t expand what kind of content they scan for? What is so difficult to grasp about that, and why do you, it seems, feel that that is an entirely irrelevant question that isn’t worth discussing, answering or being concerned about? >It works like this: ‘What guarantee do we have that he won’t hit his wife after we leave?’ >Obviously this is a way of suggesting that the man will hit his wife, phrased as a question to facilitate the same kind of denial that you are using here. You leave and hope that he doesn’t, but would you never follow up with your friends to see how they’re doing after a domestic altercation, to make sure it hasn’t happened again and that they’re safe from harm? What is so wrong about being aware of possibilities and remaining vigilant?

zepto 5y ago
> You leave and hope that he doesn’t You’re both proving the point. Nobody said the man had done anything wrong, and yet you are assuming he did simply because someone asked a question and recommending that people act on this false impression. That is exactly the goal of innuendo.
- jjulius 5y ago
  Your scenario around leaving and whether or not the man will hit his wife was flawed from the start. Given the context of this broader conversation - Apple implementing a new photo-scanning system - one assumes that with the way you left the beginning of your scenario open to interpretation/assumption, that you are leaving after he's already hit his wife (in this case, Apple implementing the CSAM scanning) and hoping he doesn't do it again (Apple scanning for different content in the future). You would do well to better set up your hypothetical scenario next time, perhaps clarifying that you haven't actually witnessed any violence firsthand prior to your departure. But again, since you continue to avoid what I'm asking: >The question is simple - what guarantee do we have that Apple won’t expand what kind of content they scan for? What is so difficult to grasp about that, and why do you, it seems, feel that that is an entirely irrelevant question that isn’t worth discussing, answering or being concerned about? and perhaps more curiously >What is so wrong about being aware of possibilities and remaining vigilant?
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Your scenario around leaving and whether or not the man will hit his wife was flawed from the start My scenario never said anything about ‘leaving’. You continue to confirm the point. You read that in to the scenario. That’s the point. You completely failed to understand the scenario as written and made up your own story to suit your prejudices. The only violence was in your imagination. What guarantee do we have that you aren’t doing the same thing with Apple?
    - jjulius 5y ago
      >My scenario never said anything about ‘leaving’. LOL, surely you jest: >It works like this: ‘What guarantee do we have that he won’t hit his wife after we leave?’ At this point, after continuously misinterpreting my posts (almost intentionally, as though you're arguing in bad faith), you've effectively moved on to gaslighting, so I'm just going to continue to reiterate the same questions I have been posting, which you continue to avoid answering. Carry on as you have been if you want, but this is about all you'll get from me moving forward until you answer them directly. - Apple has decided to scan for a specific kind of content on their phones, what guarantee do we have that they won't scan for other content in the future? - For someone who commented, "stand up for civil liberties now", why are you so opposed to people being aware of possibilities and remaining vigilant?