6 ms·

All of what we're discussing is within the realm of decency, not law. Yes it's impolite to gossip about people, always has been. It's however tyrannical and tot

All of what we're discussing is within the realm of decency, not law. Yes it's impolite to gossip about people, always has been. It's however tyrannical and totally inappropriate to legislate decency.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
It was a matter of decency first, but we're here talking about it because to varying degrees in varying jurisdictions it most certainly is law.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Yes, and I'm suggesting these laws are unjust because they impose the values of some segment of people on to others. Leave people to associate as they see fit. Some groups will track you, some won't. You can choose which to patronize, on which browsers.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    Literally all laws “impose the values of some segment of people on to others”, so according to your criterion all laws are unjust. I guess that’s a form of anarchism, and you’re welcome to it. For me, it’s simply not an interesting way to think about justice and how society should be ordered, because it seems to be the end of a conversation, rather than the beginning.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      No, some laws and some rights merely provide a framework for peaceful coexistence. See negative vs positive rights. ...your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins. -John B. Finch
      - leephillips 5y ago
        Are laws against theft unjust because they criminalize nonviolent forms of theft?
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        Laws against theft are just because violence is a legitimate form of recourse against thieves. In order to surrender this right to violence, people need an alternative recourse. This furthers my point - since what we're talking about is basically gossip at scale, would you argue that violence is a legitimate form of recourse?
        leephillips 5y ago
        Why is violence is a legitimate form of recourse against thieves? Perhaps violence is so inherently evil that it is better to part with one’s property than to protect it with force.
Nextgrid 5y ago
If the gossip was scaled up enough you might have laws created around it (actually some jurisdictions have anti-libel laws which is basically equivalent to gossip). We don't currently attempt to legislate decency because in most cases the system self-regulates, just like it used to do with the shopkeeper & fungus cream scenario mentioned in another comment. Then technology came along and increased the possibility of information sharing (and potential harm) by orders of magnitude, and once it's been determined that the system no longer self-regulated laws such as the GDPR were drafted.
- em-bee 5y ago
  well online-mob-cancellations fuelled by social media are exactly what scaled up gossip leads to. so we are already there and it's about time that something is being done about that.
leephillips 5y ago
It’s not tyrannical, unless the very existence of laws is tyranny. Law is the legislation of decency. Any other kind of law we call “unjust”.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  "decency" is not definable, that's why it's tyrannical to legislate about it. Laws serve to establish a framework merely for peaceful coexistence. To use them to try to make everyone decent is surgery with a sledgehammer.
  - Macha 5y ago
    Right, and that's why we have GDPR consent and legitimate interests and all those other terms to come to something that is legally definable.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      All of those things are basically religious terms to me. Some people subscribe to the religion that they have a "right to be forgotten" or a "right to their data". I don't subscribe to this religion, I want out.
      - Macha 5y ago
        You can lobby for the law to be changed. Don't be surprised you can't get a critical mass for "Yes, I'd like businesses to be able to track me". You could just as equally declare copyright law or property law to be a religion and insist you don't want to subscribe to it, but society as a whole does, and so if you want to participate you just have to lump it.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        What if the laws were the other way, and business were being mandated to track everything they can about the people they interact with? How would this tyranny be different from the one existing currently? Just because the majority decides something, that doesn't mean it's not tyrannical. People should be free to peacefully interact with each other as they individually see fit. Some people may track, some may choose not to, advertise that fact. Any picking of sides is totally arbitrary and therefore unjust.
mindslight 5y ago
Decency works for managing personal behavior on a small scale, with an ultimate check of free association. Commercial surveillance invalidates both the assumption of scale and the ability to opt out. In general it seems like you're just asserting that value judgements should be scale free, while ignoring qualitative criticisms.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  You're right, I'm basically arguing that free people don't have value judgements imposed on them.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're really not. Commercial surveillance is exactly this imposition of value judgements onto people without their consent. I myself am a libertarian. A government is merely a large corporation that is impractical to opt out of. Conversely, corporations that are impractical to opt out of constitute de facto government. Data protection laws like the GDPR attempt to constrain the power of corporations so they don't rise to that level, which ultimately constrains the amount of government.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      A government is much more than a large corporation that is "impractical" to opt out of. They are the sole arbiter of legitimate force, and the sole entity that can govern your behavior in places you have a right to be. Corporations are perfectly practical to opt out of, as demonstrated by the many people who do. Find me one person who doesn't pay taxes and doesn't go to jail. I know plenty of people who don't interact with FAANG at all. Corporations will never rise to the legitimate use of force. If they do, they'll be governments.
      - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
        > Corporations will never rise to the legitimate use of force. Jus because that's how things are now doesn't mean it has always been that way or always will be. The earliest Corporations originally did use force and in fact at times maintained armies and /or navies.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

It was a matter of decency first, but we're here talking about it because to varying degrees in varying jurisdictions it most certainly is law.

thegrimmest 5y ago
Yes, and I'm suggesting these laws are unjust because they impose the values of some segment of people on to others. Leave people to associate as they see fit. Some groups will track you, some won't. You can choose which to patronize, on which browsers.
- leephillips 5y ago
  Literally all laws “impose the values of some segment of people on to others”, so according to your criterion all laws are unjust. I guess that’s a form of anarchism, and you’re welcome to it. For me, it’s simply not an interesting way to think about justice and how society should be ordered, because it seems to be the end of a conversation, rather than the beginning.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    No, some laws and some rights merely provide a framework for peaceful coexistence. See negative vs positive rights. ...your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins. -John B. Finch
    - leephillips 5y ago
      Are laws against theft unjust because they criminalize nonviolent forms of theft?
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        Laws against theft are just because violence is a legitimate form of recourse against thieves. In order to surrender this right to violence, people need an alternative recourse. This furthers my point - since what we're talking about is basically gossip at scale, would you argue that violence is a legitimate form of recourse?
        leephillips 5y ago
        Why is violence is a legitimate form of recourse against thieves? Perhaps violence is so inherently evil that it is better to part with one’s property than to protect it with force.

Nextgrid 5y ago

If the gossip was scaled up enough you might have laws created around it (actually some jurisdictions have anti-libel laws which is basically equivalent to gossip). We don't currently attempt to legislate decency because in most cases the system self-regulates, just like it used to do with the shopkeeper & fungus cream scenario mentioned in another comment. Then technology came along and increased the possibility of information sharing (and potential harm) by orders of magnitude, and once it's been determined that the system no longer self-regulated laws such as the GDPR were drafted.

em-bee 5y ago
well online-mob-cancellations fuelled by social media are exactly what scaled up gossip leads to. so we are already there and it's about time that something is being done about that.

leephillips 5y ago

It’s not tyrannical, unless the very existence of laws is tyranny. Law is the legislation of decency. Any other kind of law we call “unjust”.

thegrimmest 5y ago
"decency" is not definable, that's why it's tyrannical to legislate about it. Laws serve to establish a framework merely for peaceful coexistence. To use them to try to make everyone decent is surgery with a sledgehammer.
- Macha 5y ago
  Right, and that's why we have GDPR consent and legitimate interests and all those other terms to come to something that is legally definable.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    All of those things are basically religious terms to me. Some people subscribe to the religion that they have a "right to be forgotten" or a "right to their data". I don't subscribe to this religion, I want out.
    - Macha 5y ago
      You can lobby for the law to be changed. Don't be surprised you can't get a critical mass for "Yes, I'd like businesses to be able to track me". You could just as equally declare copyright law or property law to be a religion and insist you don't want to subscribe to it, but society as a whole does, and so if you want to participate you just have to lump it.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        What if the laws were the other way, and business were being mandated to track everything they can about the people they interact with? How would this tyranny be different from the one existing currently? Just because the majority decides something, that doesn't mean it's not tyrannical. People should be free to peacefully interact with each other as they individually see fit. Some people may track, some may choose not to, advertise that fact. Any picking of sides is totally arbitrary and therefore unjust.

mindslight 5y ago

Decency works for managing personal behavior on a small scale, with an ultimate check of free association. Commercial surveillance invalidates both the assumption of scale and the ability to opt out. In general it seems like you're just asserting that value judgements should be scale free, while ignoring qualitative criticisms.

thegrimmest 5y ago
You're right, I'm basically arguing that free people don't have value judgements imposed on them.
- mindslight 5y ago
  I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're really not. Commercial surveillance is exactly this imposition of value judgements onto people without their consent. I myself am a libertarian. A government is merely a large corporation that is impractical to opt out of. Conversely, corporations that are impractical to opt out of constitute de facto government. Data protection laws like the GDPR attempt to constrain the power of corporations so they don't rise to that level, which ultimately constrains the amount of government.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    A government is much more than a large corporation that is "impractical" to opt out of. They are the sole arbiter of legitimate force, and the sole entity that can govern your behavior in places you have a right to be. Corporations are perfectly practical to opt out of, as demonstrated by the many people who do. Find me one person who doesn't pay taxes and doesn't go to jail. I know plenty of people who don't interact with FAANG at all. Corporations will never rise to the legitimate use of force. If they do, they'll be governments.
    - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
      > Corporations will never rise to the legitimate use of force. Jus because that's how things are now doesn't mean it has always been that way or always will be. The earliest Corporations originally did use force and in fact at times maintained armies and /or navies.