3 ms·

As a matter of policy in this event I agree with the EFF. But given this timeline of modern wars, I can't agree with the literal headline, since war is almost a

As a matter of policy in this event I agree with the EFF. But given this timeline of modern wars, I can't agree with the literal headline, since war is almost always going on somewhere. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/timeline-of-20th-and-21st-century-wars https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/timeline-of-20th-and-21st-cen... A better heuristic is to not make policy when upset or angry, and the existence of war is a poor proxy of that. And even that rule can be a hindrance to adequately and rapidly responding to novel stimuli.

Sallywell 5y ago
Someone made me think, questioning: 'First try, but you can't fix mistakes if your trying teaches you something? Now present in European-MSM 'The Weakening Of Russia', Hint: 'Initially, the Energy Charter process aimed to integrate the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe' The 'EU' broke the contract (one-sided) September'21 (with 'a grain' of 'Green-Deal' (1,8 metric billions in Euro) euphoria ^^) regards,
scratcheee 5y ago
You're right, but I think they were making a different point in the title than that the pressure of war would lead to unwise decisions (though they may have been going for both at once). They were also pointing out that the internet is likely to do more good than harm as far as de-escalating tensions goes, if you want to end a war, then turning off the internet is probably not a good policy, since it closes off an opportunity for dialogue and shared perspectives, so could do more harm than any potential good caused by the economic/social pressure. So "[As a sanction during] Wartime is a Bad Time to Mess with the Internet [if the eventual intent is to de-escalate the war]" is a more reasonable interpretation of the title.