3 ms·

Following that line of reasoning, imagine 10 years from now, talking about homosexuality is made retroactively illegal. You'd be in big trouble (and now me!).

by revorad 15y ago

Following that line of reasoning, imagine 10 years from now, talking about homosexuality is made retroactively illegal. You'd be in big trouble (and now me!). If the above scenario sounds unrealistic to you, that's right. It is unrealistic, just like the one you painted. I'd rather not tell Google everything about myself but I'm honestly shocked that such extreme examples are being used to argue against the idea. By invoking Nazi analogies to make your point, you're actually doing a disservice to your argument. The instinct of my irrational mind is to think: well if it needs another Hitler to make it really scary, then I can probably ignore it.

dctoedt 15y ago
By invoking Nazi analogies to make your point, you're actually doing a disservice to your argument. I just finished reading the NYT best-seller In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin [1]. It made me think that, notwithstanding Godwin's Law [2], citizens should continue to be mindful of what can happen in a 'civilized' society. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/dp/0307408841 http://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/... (not an affiliate link). [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
pwenzel 15y ago
My automatic Godwin's Law Filter allowed me to scan right past that argument.
- swombat 15y ago
  Government and other nation-wide institutions are one of the few things that should be designed with the worst case scenario in mind, because history has shown with admirable consistency that this worst case comes up again, and again, and again. If you don't want "the next Hitler" you need your political system to be designed to avoid allowing "him" to happen. Communism largely failed as a system because it consistently brought out the worst dictators in each country and put them on top. Having all this data in one place has no historical precedent. It is only smart to at least consider the worst case, given the potential damage. If you don't like the Hitler analogy, then consider something close to home: What would the Taliban have done with all this data on their people? The answer seems pretty obvious.
swombat 15y ago
It doesn't seem all that unrealistic to me. My dad, who has actually lived in a communist dictatorship for most of his life, and experienced this type of thing first-hand, constantly criticises me for all the dangerous stuff I post online. The fact is, if such a regime comes up unexpectedly, I'll be against the wall before I know it. My plan to deal with this is to keep extremely aware of the political evolution where I live and to make sure that if it looks like such a regime is about to take power, I'm on the other side of the world with my family when that happens. What's your plan?
- chrischen 15y ago
  It's unrealistic in the developed world and there are actually reasons for preserving privacy besides something so extreme like the example you painted. Reasons besides simply for hiding what the gov't thinks is wrongdoing.

by revorad 15y ago

dctoedt 15y ago

By invoking Nazi analogies to make your point, you're actually doing a disservice to your argument. I just finished reading the NYT best-seller In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin [1]. It made me think that, notwithstanding Godwin's Law [2], citizens should continue to be mindful of what can happen in a 'civilized' society. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/dp/0307408841 http://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/... (not an affiliate link). [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

pwenzel 15y ago

My automatic Godwin's Law Filter allowed me to scan right past that argument.

swombat 15y ago
Government and other nation-wide institutions are one of the few things that should be designed with the worst case scenario in mind, because history has shown with admirable consistency that this worst case comes up again, and again, and again. If you don't want "the next Hitler" you need your political system to be designed to avoid allowing "him" to happen. Communism largely failed as a system because it consistently brought out the worst dictators in each country and put them on top. Having all this data in one place has no historical precedent. It is only smart to at least consider the worst case, given the potential damage. If you don't like the Hitler analogy, then consider something close to home: What would the Taliban have done with all this data on their people? The answer seems pretty obvious.

swombat 15y ago

It doesn't seem all that unrealistic to me. My dad, who has actually lived in a communist dictatorship for most of his life, and experienced this type of thing first-hand, constantly criticises me for all the dangerous stuff I post online. The fact is, if such a regime comes up unexpectedly, I'll be against the wall before I know it. My plan to deal with this is to keep extremely aware of the political evolution where I live and to make sure that if it looks like such a regime is about to take power, I'm on the other side of the world with my family when that happens. What's your plan?

chrischen 15y ago
It's unrealistic in the developed world and there are actually reasons for preserving privacy besides something so extreme like the example you painted. Reasons besides simply for hiding what the gov't thinks is wrongdoing.