7 ms·

Is there any other source than the NYpost?

by wan_ala 4y ago

Nahtnah 4y ago
- everforward 4y ago
  > Half this article is about how it was targeted against election deniers/MAGA die hards. But of course, even that is spun as being bad in this article. From the article: ‘None were Antifa types’ It is a bad thing, because the law protects our disagreement with the election deniers/MAGA diehards only as much as it protects their disagreement with ours. Having the same opinions as people who did illegal things isn't and shouldn't be grounds for targeted surveillance. The pendulum will swing the other way eventually, and they'll be digging into the messages of people that talk about defunding the police because "antifa" took control over part of Portland for a while. Or target abortion activists because they caught a few people trying to assassinate Supreme Court justices. Trusting that government overreach will only affect the other side usually backfires.
  - vegai_ 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    > It is a bad thing, because the law protects our disagreement with the election deniers/MAGA diehards only as much as it protects their disagreement with ours. [Citation Needed] I'll assume you mean the first amendment and that only applies to the government not to private business (i.e. Facebook). It definitely does not apply to a webpage that told you in their T&C that they're scanning the content you post. The article may quote “Facebook provides the FBI with private conversations which are protected by the First Amendment without any subpoena.” but it wouldn't be worth the ink it's printed on. Time and time again it's been shown that if a third party (i.e. facebook) wants to willingly give information to the government a subpoena is not needed.
    - everforward 4y ago
      The 4th Amendment is at issue here. This is just a neat end-run around the 4th Amendment; it doesn't apply if you can put enough soft pressure on businesses to have them report on their own users. You're right that it's legal under the current interpretation of the laws. It just means the 4th Amendment isn't worth the paper it was printed on, and it'll get relegated to the "stuff people used to care about category" like the 3rd.
      - skeyo 4y ago
        kinda like saying it should be illegal for a cop to _ask_ for your ID
        everforward 4y ago
        That's a very different situation. For one, that's a first party request; I can refuse (in some states, in some circumstances). A license also can't contain private information; it's a physical manifestation of information that a person willingly surrendered to the government. There's a huge difference between a cop asking a single person for their ID, and dragnet surveillance of people with a particular viewpoint.
        Nahtnah 4y ago
        I think his point is there's a similar distinction between monitoring a group of people who attacked democracy, and dragnet surveillance of the entire population.
  - Nahtnah 4y ago
    - fakethenews2022 4y ago
      It is your bias to see only two sides and to see your side as morally superior whose transgressions are justified. There is plenty of utter horriblenesses coming from both “sides”.
      - EdwardDiego 4y ago
        tb_technical 4y ago
        Antifa didn't do it, but a lot of people were negatively affected by refusing to get vaccinated. This administrations policies booted a lot of people from their jobs. And all these bitter conservatives are going to turn around and use this as justification to force women to carry to term. And they're not going to listen to any reason, because they feel like you (not you specifically, the royal "you") threatened their livelyhood. In a sense the lefty types literally made a rod for their own back.
        Nahtnah 4y ago
        One has very little to do with the other besides having to do with body autonomy. Also, people were never forced to get vaccinated. I would always be against that. Women are being forced to come to term. It's unfair to women for a bunch of nerdy guys to rhetorically equate the two. And by going after abortion, looks like GOP might have made a rod for THEIR own back. We'll see.
        tb_technical 4y ago
        People are not forced to get vaccinated the same way women are not forced to be fertile. We live in a world of IUDs, morning after pills, and birth control. Why not just not be pregnant? (Yuck) But this is a disgusting line of logic to go down - and whether or not they are truly equivalent doesn't matter because the political opposition believes that they are. Bodily autonomy is about to be sacrificed to government whims, just like privacy was, and assuming we can just put the cat in the bag is naïve. I hope our rights become further enshrined, but I don't think it's in the cards.
- treeman79 4y ago
  - vegai_ 4y ago
- nat-t-ice 4y ago

Is there any other source than the NYpost?

Nahtnah 4y ago

everforward 4y ago
> Half this article is about how it was targeted against election deniers/MAGA die hards. But of course, even that is spun as being bad in this article. From the article: ‘None were Antifa types’ It is a bad thing, because the law protects our disagreement with the election deniers/MAGA diehards only as much as it protects their disagreement with ours. Having the same opinions as people who did illegal things isn't and shouldn't be grounds for targeted surveillance. The pendulum will swing the other way eventually, and they'll be digging into the messages of people that talk about defunding the police because "antifa" took control over part of Portland for a while. Or target abortion activists because they caught a few people trying to assassinate Supreme Court justices. Trusting that government overreach will only affect the other side usually backfires.
- vegai_ 4y ago
  [flagged]
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > It is a bad thing, because the law protects our disagreement with the election deniers/MAGA diehards only as much as it protects their disagreement with ours. [Citation Needed] I'll assume you mean the first amendment and that only applies to the government not to private business (i.e. Facebook). It definitely does not apply to a webpage that told you in their T&C that they're scanning the content you post. The article may quote “Facebook provides the FBI with private conversations which are protected by the First Amendment without any subpoena.” but it wouldn't be worth the ink it's printed on. Time and time again it's been shown that if a third party (i.e. facebook) wants to willingly give information to the government a subpoena is not needed.
  - everforward 4y ago
    The 4th Amendment is at issue here. This is just a neat end-run around the 4th Amendment; it doesn't apply if you can put enough soft pressure on businesses to have them report on their own users. You're right that it's legal under the current interpretation of the laws. It just means the 4th Amendment isn't worth the paper it was printed on, and it'll get relegated to the "stuff people used to care about category" like the 3rd.
    - skeyo 4y ago
      kinda like saying it should be illegal for a cop to _ask_ for your ID
      - everforward 4y ago
        That's a very different situation. For one, that's a first party request; I can refuse (in some states, in some circumstances). A license also can't contain private information; it's a physical manifestation of information that a person willingly surrendered to the government. There's a huge difference between a cop asking a single person for their ID, and dragnet surveillance of people with a particular viewpoint.
        Nahtnah 4y ago
        I think his point is there's a similar distinction between monitoring a group of people who attacked democracy, and dragnet surveillance of the entire population.
- Nahtnah 4y ago
  - fakethenews2022 4y ago
    It is your bias to see only two sides and to see your side as morally superior whose transgressions are justified. There is plenty of utter horriblenesses coming from both “sides”.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      - tb_technical 4y ago
        Antifa didn't do it, but a lot of people were negatively affected by refusing to get vaccinated. This administrations policies booted a lot of people from their jobs. And all these bitter conservatives are going to turn around and use this as justification to force women to carry to term. And they're not going to listen to any reason, because they feel like you (not you specifically, the royal "you") threatened their livelyhood. In a sense the lefty types literally made a rod for their own back.
        Nahtnah 4y ago
        One has very little to do with the other besides having to do with body autonomy. Also, people were never forced to get vaccinated. I would always be against that. Women are being forced to come to term. It's unfair to women for a bunch of nerdy guys to rhetorically equate the two. And by going after abortion, looks like GOP might have made a rod for THEIR own back. We'll see.
        tb_technical 4y ago
        People are not forced to get vaccinated the same way women are not forced to be fertile. We live in a world of IUDs, morning after pills, and birth control. Why not just not be pregnant? (Yuck) But this is a disgusting line of logic to go down - and whether or not they are truly equivalent doesn't matter because the political opposition believes that they are. Bodily autonomy is about to be sacrificed to government whims, just like privacy was, and assuming we can just put the cat in the bag is naïve. I hope our rights become further enshrined, but I don't think it's in the cards.
treeman79 4y ago
- vegai_ 4y ago
nat-t-ice 4y ago