4 ms·

I don't know. To me, it's like arguing that cannabis is relatively safe to consume and has health benefits. Completely sails past (and loses by default) the arg

I don't know. To me, it's like arguing that cannabis is relatively safe to consume and has health benefits. Completely sails past (and loses by default) the argument of personal autonomy. By shifting the discussion away from turnkey tyranny, we're admitting, at least for the moment, a defeat in that argument.

godelski 4y ago
I think you've really missed my entire point. My point is that we should include several arguments. Pigeon holing means having a strict focus. I'm arguing that ONLY talking about turnkey tyranny is not a good argument. Let's be real, we've been having this discussion since long before Snowden. Clearly it, alone, is not effective. So I'm not arguing to abandon the turnkey tyranny discussion, but expand our discussion to include issues beyond it.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  turnkey tyrrany, as you call it, should be enough.
  - godelski 4y ago
    Should, but isn't.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      should in this case means is, even if you disagree.
      - godelski 4y ago
        Turnkey tyranny is a good enough argument for you, me, and many others. It isn't for a lot of others though. This is indisputable. We have decades of history of making this argument and have garnered little support through the argument. Ipso facto, it is not good enough. I understand what you meant, the problem is that you're wrong.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        You have many people trying to explain it to you, figure it out or don't, not my concern.
- cdogl 4y ago
  I think that’s important, because the examples you give aren’t entirely unrelated to turnkey tyranny. The abuse of these systems for personal gain by bad actors goes hand in hand with their political instrumentalisation. See East Germany, etc.
- soulofmischief 4y ago
  Unfortunately, complexifying arguments weakens your ability to invest in any one argument, and the reality is most people don't themselves invest time in any more than one. Look at the abortion debate. One side says the most important issue is women's bodily autonomy. The other side ignores this argument entirely and focuses on "abortion is murder", which is more than enough to catalyze their voting base into disregarding all other arguments. I'm not saying it's not good to have a complex argument. I am questioning whether it's ultimately going to be the most effective strategy here.
  - godelski 4y ago
    So the complexity is for people in the know. The strategy is to pick the topic that matters most to your audience. That's why I said that if you dislike any singular one of the problems it is enough to be against the system. If you don't know your audience, don't pigeonhole your argument. That's all I'm saying here. Doesn't need to be complex, despite the issue being so. But also you're complexifying my argument. I would also argue that part of the reason we've gotten to this point is because we try to hide complexity from people. People are both smarter and dumber than you think. But people don't like to be treated like they are dumb, so don't.
    - soulofmischief 4y ago
      Audience-specific arguments are definitely a good way to compartmentalize complexity. So niche communities are covered more effectively, but which argument should CNN choose? MSNBC? Other mainstream news sources with large audiences? > But also you're complexifying my argument. Assume good faith, I'm not trying to argue against you, but reach a novel conclusion by discussing with you. This is why my reply began with "I don't know". > But people don't like to be treated like they are dumb, so don't. I don't assume a given individual is dumb, and I reject such a generalized classification. Very intelligent people can have extremely simple perspectives about issues outside of their expertise. Simplicity/complexity is not strictly related to intelligence. It's far more a function of time and available energy one has to spend learning about an issue. I'd prefer to dispense with the metric of intelligence altogether and focus on reduction of wasted complexity.
zajio1am 4y ago
> By shifting the discussion away from turnkey tyranny, we're admitting, at least for the moment, a defeat in that argument. I would think it is the opposite. Focusing on turnkey tyranny puts focus away from the more fundamental point of privacy of personal data/communication to just some possible negative consequence. But the privacy is value regardless of these consequences. If my communication is scanned then my privacy is violated, that is bad even if there is no tyranny and no negative consequence to me.

godelski 4y ago

I think you've really missed my entire point. My point is that we should include several arguments. Pigeon holing means having a strict focus. I'm arguing that ONLY talking about turnkey tyranny is not a good argument. Let's be real, we've been having this discussion since long before Snowden. Clearly it, alone, is not effective. So I'm not arguing to abandon the turnkey tyranny discussion, but expand our discussion to include issues beyond it.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
turnkey tyrrany, as you call it, should be enough.
- godelski 4y ago
  Should, but isn't.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    should in this case means is, even if you disagree.
    - godelski 4y ago
      Turnkey tyranny is a good enough argument for you, me, and many others. It isn't for a lot of others though. This is indisputable. We have decades of history of making this argument and have garnered little support through the argument. Ipso facto, it is not good enough. I understand what you meant, the problem is that you're wrong.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        You have many people trying to explain it to you, figure it out or don't, not my concern.
cdogl 4y ago
I think that’s important, because the examples you give aren’t entirely unrelated to turnkey tyranny. The abuse of these systems for personal gain by bad actors goes hand in hand with their political instrumentalisation. See East Germany, etc.
soulofmischief 4y ago
Unfortunately, complexifying arguments weakens your ability to invest in any one argument, and the reality is most people don't themselves invest time in any more than one. Look at the abortion debate. One side says the most important issue is women's bodily autonomy. The other side ignores this argument entirely and focuses on "abortion is murder", which is more than enough to catalyze their voting base into disregarding all other arguments. I'm not saying it's not good to have a complex argument. I am questioning whether it's ultimately going to be the most effective strategy here.
- godelski 4y ago
  So the complexity is for people in the know. The strategy is to pick the topic that matters most to your audience. That's why I said that if you dislike any singular one of the problems it is enough to be against the system. If you don't know your audience, don't pigeonhole your argument. That's all I'm saying here. Doesn't need to be complex, despite the issue being so. But also you're complexifying my argument. I would also argue that part of the reason we've gotten to this point is because we try to hide complexity from people. People are both smarter and dumber than you think. But people don't like to be treated like they are dumb, so don't.
  - soulofmischief 4y ago
    Audience-specific arguments are definitely a good way to compartmentalize complexity. So niche communities are covered more effectively, but which argument should CNN choose? MSNBC? Other mainstream news sources with large audiences? > But also you're complexifying my argument. Assume good faith, I'm not trying to argue against you, but reach a novel conclusion by discussing with you. This is why my reply began with "I don't know". > But people don't like to be treated like they are dumb, so don't. I don't assume a given individual is dumb, and I reject such a generalized classification. Very intelligent people can have extremely simple perspectives about issues outside of their expertise. Simplicity/complexity is not strictly related to intelligence. It's far more a function of time and available energy one has to spend learning about an issue. I'd prefer to dispense with the metric of intelligence altogether and focus on reduction of wasted complexity.

zajio1am 4y ago

> By shifting the discussion away from turnkey tyranny, we're admitting, at least for the moment, a defeat in that argument. I would think it is the opposite. Focusing on turnkey tyranny puts focus away from the more fundamental point of privacy of personal data/communication to just some possible negative consequence. But the privacy is value regardless of these consequences. If my communication is scanned then my privacy is violated, that is bad even if there is no tyranny and no negative consequence to me.