4 ms·

> There are too many who are too apathetic. Revolutionary change is often a case of "it" getting (a lot) worse before it gets better, but with the inevitability

> There are too many who are too apathetic. Revolutionary change is often a case of "it" getting (a lot) worse before it gets better, but with the inevitability of returning to the previous status quo just with different bums on the same seats. The problem with this is that you have far too many keyboard warriors who read clickbait headlines and decide they want to change the system. The people actually working in that system have decades of knowledge about how it works. That isn't always a bad thing. They may understand how to navigate a complex system to get the real change you want, to actually happen. Imagine if people in this "decentralized, trustless future" saw a YouTube video of an aircraft landing and came to the conclusion that they didn't use enough rudder on landing, without understanding the nature of a 25 knot crosswind. They'd vote, the pilots would be fired, and aviation safety would drop another notch because the people voting didn't understand the scope of what they were voting on, because they weren't trained pilots.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
I was referring to a potential way that messaging could avoid the ongoing pendulum between small, independent and as-yet un-tainted by snooping platforms and the large, popular, privacy invasions they eventually turn into because of their centralised control. I wholeheartedly do not believe in making aircraft safety a democratic process. Horses for courses. Winston Churchill's quote: “…democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”
- EMM_386 5y ago
  > I wholeheartedly do not believe in making aircraft safety a democratic process. But if I read you correctly ("society's ability to change politics") ... this is how the US got things like January 6th. It's completely destabilizing for a functioning democracy when relatively small groups of like-minded people can coordinate over private channels and rally themselves into something crazy. The reason politics "works" (and I use that term lightly these days) in this country are because things are all done out in the open. If you don't like "snooping" and would prefer our politics be done in the dark ... that isn't freedom, that's back-channel politics. We don't want that, I don't care if the left or the right is doing it. I am actually in favor of E2E encrypted chats and the like. But we need to keep politics out in the light of day. If you want to change the system, run for office.
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    > I am actually in favor of E2E encrypted chats and the like. But we need to keep politics out in the light of day. That aligns with my position. I fundamentally believe in the necessity of transparency in politics. What I don't believe in is the the necessity of government / law enforcement snooping on E2E encrypted chats. I don't want back-channel politics, I want back-channel private conversations amongst the citizenry. If this enables some back-channel politics then that's a price I believe is worth paying partially due to the fact that the end results of political decisions and actions are, by necessity, public. Politicians should, by policy, have their political communications recorded (not made public, but archived "just in case") since they're working for the public. Those who avoid such scrutiny should be named and shamed if it can be proven. Utopian, I'm aware.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

I was referring to a potential way that messaging could avoid the ongoing pendulum between small, independent and as-yet un-tainted by snooping platforms and the large, popular, privacy invasions they eventually turn into because of their centralised control. I wholeheartedly do not believe in making aircraft safety a democratic process. Horses for courses. Winston Churchill's quote: “…democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”

EMM_386 5y ago
> I wholeheartedly do not believe in making aircraft safety a democratic process. But if I read you correctly ("society's ability to change politics") ... this is how the US got things like January 6th. It's completely destabilizing for a functioning democracy when relatively small groups of like-minded people can coordinate over private channels and rally themselves into something crazy. The reason politics "works" (and I use that term lightly these days) in this country are because things are all done out in the open. If you don't like "snooping" and would prefer our politics be done in the dark ... that isn't freedom, that's back-channel politics. We don't want that, I don't care if the left or the right is doing it. I am actually in favor of E2E encrypted chats and the like. But we need to keep politics out in the light of day. If you want to change the system, run for office.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  > I am actually in favor of E2E encrypted chats and the like. But we need to keep politics out in the light of day. That aligns with my position. I fundamentally believe in the necessity of transparency in politics. What I don't believe in is the the necessity of government / law enforcement snooping on E2E encrypted chats. I don't want back-channel politics, I want back-channel private conversations amongst the citizenry. If this enables some back-channel politics then that's a price I believe is worth paying partially due to the fact that the end results of political decisions and actions are, by necessity, public. Politicians should, by policy, have their political communications recorded (not made public, but archived "just in case") since they're working for the public. Those who avoid such scrutiny should be named and shamed if it can be proven. Utopian, I'm aware.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]