5 ms·

How so? Even if the intent of such programs might be positive, is there not a risk of them being used to limit, coerce, or change user behaviour? (it wouldn't b

How so? Even if the intent of such programs might be positive, is there not a risk of them being used to limit, coerce, or change user behaviour? (it wouldn't be the first time) Why is this such an offensive statement?

pc86 5y ago
Social credit is offensive and freedom-limiting by definition. You can't make any small-d-democratic argument in favor of a massive central social credit system because the two are antithetical. A vaccine passport system could turn into something similar, but that's not necessarily a given. It's the slippery slope fallacy taken to the extreme - "because it's possible to imagine a situation in which a vaccine passport system goes way beyond its usefulness and becomes oppressive, that means vaccine passport systems are oppressive." In addition to that sentiment being wrong, HN also has a pretty violent knee-jerk reaction to anything that could even potentially be taken as anti-vax sentiment. As can be seen by this garbage[0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29659905#29661353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29659905#29661353
- zivkovicp 5y ago
  > Social credit is offensive and freedom-limiting by definition. Yes, I agree. I was defending this exact point. The commenter I replied to originally seemed upset about the original comment condemning vax passports. I guess I didn't word my response clearly enough.
  - nix23 5y ago
    To put a proof of vaccination on the same level as a social credit system is just beyond, if you don't have a passport you cannot travel into other country's, if your dog is not vaccinated against rabbis, he cannot travel to let's say Georgia. I am upset because a Quanon goat thinks a vaxpass is the same as a social credit system, and was just made for that "ultimately"
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  Zero trolling here. I am modestly in favour of a COVID-19 vaccine "passport". And yes, I have considered the oppression side of the argument. Why am I modestly in favour? Look at how yellow fever vaccination status is handled. In areas of the world where it is still endemic, travelers are denied entry without a recent vaccination and an official UN/WHO card to prove it. (Please leave aside for a moment the idea that these cards can be fake. Assume they are accurate for this discussion.) Almost by small-d-democratic definition, the yellow fever vaccine requirement is oppressive. However, it helps to reduce the spread of yellow fever. Please provide your thoughts and comments.
  - pc86 5y ago
    I've never traveled anywhere yellow fever is endemic so I don't know a ton about it other than the vaccination requirements you mention. I carry my vaccination card in my wallet so I'm not immediately opposed to some sort of verifiable way to confirm one's vaccination status. There are absolutely some instances where it makes sense to mandate it, but it's wrong to try to structure society so that you can't take part unless you're vaccinated. There's a point at which mandates and guidelines aren't helpful anymore and they become theater. I'm not going to put a mask on at the entrance to a restaurant, walk ten feet to a table, and take my mask off. That's theater. I have unvaccinated family members. They're not changing their mind, I'm done trying to change it, but they're still in my family and they're not disowned or excommunicated because they happen to be wrong about something. Omicron seems as transmissible or slightly more-so, but much less deadly. That sounds like exactly what we thought multiple variants would lead to a year ago. It sounds like things are in the right track and we're on our way out of the forest, so to speak. But, government being government, I don't see mandates slowing or going away any time soon. I think what's here is here to stay, whether it works or not.
    - zivkovicp 5y ago
      This sounds about right. I'm not informed enough to comment on the virus or quality/efficacy/safety of any of the vaccines, but I am vaccinated, and have friends and family in both camps. All I know is that this is not a naive virus, I know about a dozen people who have had it, not everyone has survived, but everyone who has was genuinely afraid for their lives. That anecdotal evidence is enough to convince me to accept a vaccine/medication because I feel the risk/reward is favourable. I can't bring myself to support mandated vaccination or making pariahs out of those who don't share my risk/reward considerations, however, because I think clawing back individual liberties that we give up is much harder than finding the compromises necessary to hold onto them in the first place. I might be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but I would prefer compromise and tolerance to a knee-jerk reaction. There is already too much bad legislation born from "times of emergency" and such, no need to stoke the flames.
geofft 5y ago
There's a risk of a baseball bat being used to limit, coerce, and change people's behavior, and there are documented cases of them being used in that way, but nobody would say that the Louisville Slugger is crypto-authoritarianism. Your statement isn't offensive and nobody is offended by it; it's just, as the comment above said, stupid. There's a difference.
- dang 5y ago
  Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You have a long history of doing this, even though I know you've also posted lots of good things. Please stick to the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
nix23 5y ago
> Even if the intent of such programs might be positive, is there not a risk of them being used to limit, coerce, or change user behaviour? Oh yes same with passports.....

pc86 5y ago

Social credit is offensive and freedom-limiting by definition. You can't make any small-d-democratic argument in favor of a massive central social credit system because the two are antithetical. A vaccine passport system could turn into something similar, but that's not necessarily a given. It's the slippery slope fallacy taken to the extreme - "because it's possible to imagine a situation in which a vaccine passport system goes way beyond its usefulness and becomes oppressive, that means vaccine passport systems are oppressive." In addition to that sentiment being wrong, HN also has a pretty violent knee-jerk reaction to anything that could even potentially be taken as anti-vax sentiment. As can be seen by this garbage[0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29659905#29661353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29659905#29661353

zivkovicp 5y ago
> Social credit is offensive and freedom-limiting by definition. Yes, I agree. I was defending this exact point. The commenter I replied to originally seemed upset about the original comment condemning vax passports. I guess I didn't word my response clearly enough.
- nix23 5y ago
  To put a proof of vaccination on the same level as a social credit system is just beyond, if you don't have a passport you cannot travel into other country's, if your dog is not vaccinated against rabbis, he cannot travel to let's say Georgia. I am upset because a Quanon goat thinks a vaxpass is the same as a social credit system, and was just made for that "ultimately"
throwaway2037 5y ago
Zero trolling here. I am modestly in favour of a COVID-19 vaccine "passport". And yes, I have considered the oppression side of the argument. Why am I modestly in favour? Look at how yellow fever vaccination status is handled. In areas of the world where it is still endemic, travelers are denied entry without a recent vaccination and an official UN/WHO card to prove it. (Please leave aside for a moment the idea that these cards can be fake. Assume they are accurate for this discussion.) Almost by small-d-democratic definition, the yellow fever vaccine requirement is oppressive. However, it helps to reduce the spread of yellow fever. Please provide your thoughts and comments.
- pc86 5y ago
  I've never traveled anywhere yellow fever is endemic so I don't know a ton about it other than the vaccination requirements you mention. I carry my vaccination card in my wallet so I'm not immediately opposed to some sort of verifiable way to confirm one's vaccination status. There are absolutely some instances where it makes sense to mandate it, but it's wrong to try to structure society so that you can't take part unless you're vaccinated. There's a point at which mandates and guidelines aren't helpful anymore and they become theater. I'm not going to put a mask on at the entrance to a restaurant, walk ten feet to a table, and take my mask off. That's theater. I have unvaccinated family members. They're not changing their mind, I'm done trying to change it, but they're still in my family and they're not disowned or excommunicated because they happen to be wrong about something. Omicron seems as transmissible or slightly more-so, but much less deadly. That sounds like exactly what we thought multiple variants would lead to a year ago. It sounds like things are in the right track and we're on our way out of the forest, so to speak. But, government being government, I don't see mandates slowing or going away any time soon. I think what's here is here to stay, whether it works or not.
  - zivkovicp 5y ago
    This sounds about right. I'm not informed enough to comment on the virus or quality/efficacy/safety of any of the vaccines, but I am vaccinated, and have friends and family in both camps. All I know is that this is not a naive virus, I know about a dozen people who have had it, not everyone has survived, but everyone who has was genuinely afraid for their lives. That anecdotal evidence is enough to convince me to accept a vaccine/medication because I feel the risk/reward is favourable. I can't bring myself to support mandated vaccination or making pariahs out of those who don't share my risk/reward considerations, however, because I think clawing back individual liberties that we give up is much harder than finding the compromises necessary to hold onto them in the first place. I might be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but I would prefer compromise and tolerance to a knee-jerk reaction. There is already too much bad legislation born from "times of emergency" and such, no need to stoke the flames.

geofft 5y ago

There's a risk of a baseball bat being used to limit, coerce, and change people's behavior, and there are documented cases of them being used in that way, but nobody would say that the Louisville Slugger is crypto-authoritarianism. Your statement isn't offensive and nobody is offended by it; it's just, as the comment above said, stupid. There's a difference.

dang 5y ago
Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You have a long history of doing this, even though I know you've also posted lots of good things. Please stick to the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

nix23 5y ago

> Even if the intent of such programs might be positive, is there not a risk of them being used to limit, coerce, or change user behaviour? Oh yes same with passports.....