4 ms·

All of this is right, except for this part: > We are well-paid professionals being asked to make our tools usable by the entire public “Asked” is wrong here.

by mwint 5y ago

All of this is right, except for this part: > We are well-paid professionals being asked to make our tools usable by the entire public “Asked” is wrong here. I can “ask” someone to do something. The government can “force” someone to do something, ultimately at gunpoint. That’s what I don’t like about this.

CoastalCoder 5y ago
I think the parent comment makes a fair point. No matter how small the issue, the government's rules are ultimately backed by the threat of deadly violence [0]. I think the rhetorical difference between "ask" and "force" is ripe for abuse in discussions regarding contentious government roles. [0] If this seems implausible, consider this thought experiment (U.S.-based). A police officer gives you a ticket jaywalking. If you don't pay it, you're at risk of being the target of an arrest warrant. If the police find you, they will attempt to put you in cuffs. It goes downhill from there. For jaywalking. I'm not arguing for or against things working this way, but I do think it's reality.
- chociej 5y ago
  In that scenario, you are not being arrested for jaywalking
  - CoastalCoder 5y ago
    > In that scenario, you are not being arrested for jaywalking I agree. But you are being arrested for the consequences of fully refusing to accept the jaywalking rule.
    - chociej 5y ago
      No, I don't think you are. You're being arrested for not paying the fine. Each was an independent choice on your part.
- roughly 5y ago
  All social compacts are ultimately backed with force. If you and a dozen people fucked off to SeaLand and lived in an anarchic commune, your agreements with one another would _still_ ultimately be backed by force, in the same way that everything here is: Your SeaLand commune agrees on some principles for behavior - say, no pushing other people; someone in the group decides to push other people; the group intervenes, attempts to talk the person out of pushing other people; the Pusher refuses to see reason; the group either resorts to force or abandons the commune to a pushocracy. If you want to argue the government is illegitimate, then go ahead, but to just point vaguely to "socially defined rules are backed by force" isn't really _saying_ anything without that.
roughly 5y ago
In the same way that architects and contractors are forced to follow building codes, yes. I'm looking for the day when someone has a gun held to their head for not making their website accessible. More likely, you'll just be fired for not doing your job.
- mwint 5y ago
  By that logic, I can refuse to follow this law without consequence? Sounds to me like my options are to comply, pay fines until I can’t and then comply, or go to jail (which would be done at gunpoint). What am I missing? What’s the magic way to avoid complying with this new government edict without escalating to violence?
  - roughly 5y ago
    > What’s the magic way to avoid complying with this new government edict without escalating to violence? Move to the mountains and farm turnips. If you mean "how do I avoid complying with laws while still participating in polite society," you're right, that one you can't do.
    - mwint 5y ago
      Right, but the law doesn’t prohibit me from farming turnips*. It prohibits me from running a website without doing certain things. That’s what will be enforced, in escalating fashion up to and including violence. If someone “asks” me to do something, they usually don’t mean “otherwise I will take your money and/or jail you”. But all laws have that threat, otherwise they wouldn’t mean anything. Hence why I take issue with saying the govt is “asking” us to do something - even though that thing is good and honorable, it’s still not an “ask”. *well, I mean, there’s probably mountain turnip preservation zones or something, where it would prohibit me from farming mountain turnips.
      - chociej 5y ago
        What do you propose instead? All governance has force at its roots.
UncleMeat 5y ago
The government needs to do that when the market fails to do it. I don't think somebody should honestly call themselves an "engineer" if they can't be bothered to make their systems usable by the masses. It is an utter lack of professionalism.

by mwint 5y ago

CoastalCoder 5y ago

I think the parent comment makes a fair point. No matter how small the issue, the government's rules are ultimately backed by the threat of deadly violence [0]. I think the rhetorical difference between "ask" and "force" is ripe for abuse in discussions regarding contentious government roles. [0] If this seems implausible, consider this thought experiment (U.S.-based). A police officer gives you a ticket jaywalking. If you don't pay it, you're at risk of being the target of an arrest warrant. If the police find you, they will attempt to put you in cuffs. It goes downhill from there. For jaywalking. I'm not arguing for or against things working this way, but I do think it's reality.

chociej 5y ago
In that scenario, you are not being arrested for jaywalking
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  > In that scenario, you are not being arrested for jaywalking I agree. But you are being arrested for the consequences of fully refusing to accept the jaywalking rule.
  - chociej 5y ago
    No, I don't think you are. You're being arrested for not paying the fine. Each was an independent choice on your part.
roughly 5y ago
All social compacts are ultimately backed with force. If you and a dozen people fucked off to SeaLand and lived in an anarchic commune, your agreements with one another would _still_ ultimately be backed by force, in the same way that everything here is: Your SeaLand commune agrees on some principles for behavior - say, no pushing other people; someone in the group decides to push other people; the group intervenes, attempts to talk the person out of pushing other people; the Pusher refuses to see reason; the group either resorts to force or abandons the commune to a pushocracy. If you want to argue the government is illegitimate, then go ahead, but to just point vaguely to "socially defined rules are backed by force" isn't really _saying_ anything without that.

roughly 5y ago

In the same way that architects and contractors are forced to follow building codes, yes. I'm looking for the day when someone has a gun held to their head for not making their website accessible. More likely, you'll just be fired for not doing your job.

mwint 5y ago
By that logic, I can refuse to follow this law without consequence? Sounds to me like my options are to comply, pay fines until I can’t and then comply, or go to jail (which would be done at gunpoint). What am I missing? What’s the magic way to avoid complying with this new government edict without escalating to violence?
- roughly 5y ago
  > What’s the magic way to avoid complying with this new government edict without escalating to violence? Move to the mountains and farm turnips. If you mean "how do I avoid complying with laws while still participating in polite society," you're right, that one you can't do.
  - mwint 5y ago
    Right, but the law doesn’t prohibit me from farming turnips*. It prohibits me from running a website without doing certain things. That’s what will be enforced, in escalating fashion up to and including violence. If someone “asks” me to do something, they usually don’t mean “otherwise I will take your money and/or jail you”. But all laws have that threat, otherwise they wouldn’t mean anything. Hence why I take issue with saying the govt is “asking” us to do something - even though that thing is good and honorable, it’s still not an “ask”. *well, I mean, there’s probably mountain turnip preservation zones or something, where it would prohibit me from farming mountain turnips.
    - chociej 5y ago
      What do you propose instead? All governance has force at its roots.

UncleMeat 5y ago

The government needs to do that when the market fails to do it. I don't think somebody should honestly call themselves an "engineer" if they can't be bothered to make their systems usable by the masses. It is an utter lack of professionalism.