3 ms·
I really hate this "why won't anyone think of the children?" argument. It's right up there with "because terrorism". I mean the government isn't technically wr
by cletus 5y ago
I really hate this "why won't anyone think of the children?" argument. It's right up there with "because terrorism".
I mean the government isn't technically wrong but the same can be said for locking your doors and not having an always-on camera in your house the police can pull up anytime they want so it's always a question of where you draw the line.
Whenever a government complains about a company this way I actually take it as a positive signal about that company. That's where we are right now.
- techdragon 5y agoThe government should never be allowed to be "not technically wrong", it must be held to account and made to prove why the course of action it is taking will result in something the public desires coming to pass. It can't just be "oh we need this because... reasons"
- cletus 5y agoI'm not sure you understood my point: I'm arguing against this not for it. "Because children" and "because terrorism" don't trump everything else. If they did we'd have always-on cameras in our homes so the government needs to argue why the loss of privacy is justified and their stated reasons are insufficient.
- andrewflnr 5y agoI think they're saying you didn't go far enough. ;)
- techdragon 5y agoI was indeed.
- tempodox 5y agoIndeed, seeing Facebook, of all companies, in a “not quite as bad as the other guys“ role is most surprising.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]