4 ms·

Privacy and freedom should be the legacy we leave

26 points by favourable 4y ago

lookagain 4y ago
mildmotive 4y ago
>we ought to respect minors enough to allow them secure and encrypted communications with one another, without the prying eyes of bigoted parents ”bigoted parents”? Who are you refering to, FSF? It’s the parents’ right to raise their children to adhere to any religious beliefs or ideologies, even those you do not agree with! Regardless, it’s not your job to dictate how parents should raise their children. Although a relationship of trust and respect of privacy should be established between a parent and their child, this should not be taken to an extreme. The internet can be quite wild, it’s neglectful to let your child consume whatever content they come across and speak to whomever they like. It’s a parent’s job to set healthy limits to these things. This does involve keeping a healthy culture of openness in the home, which contradicts the notion of privacy (from their “bigoted parents”) that you’re advocating children should have. I am a privacy advocate myself, and am against mass-surveillance by the state. Here is the problem though: pedophiles and groomers do exist. The way we mitigate this problem is not by giving the tyrants more power, it’s by empowering parents by providing them with the tools to limit exposure to these threats. This gives power to the (bigoted lol) parents to filter out the bad and keep as much good as possible. The companies that are bribing tyrants to partake in the surveillance system should have their leadership thrown in prison. The companies that provide solutions for us to protect our children should be rewarded and praised.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Yeah, I agree with the FSF almost everywhere, but not here. Minors do not and should not have the right to communication that's private from their own parents.
  - dTal 4y ago
    Not even in a situation of child abuse? Should gay teens in ultra-conservative households just suck it up and not talk about their sexuality with anyone ever until they're adults? Perfectly healthy I'm sure...
    - Ferrotin 4y ago
      They don’t need to talk about their biological urges with strangers.
      - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
        This would prevent them from doing so with _anyone_.
    - mildmotive 4y ago
      I’m fairly certain that most “gay teens” don’t come from ultra-conservative households.
      - dTal 4y ago
        Er, why?
        mildmotive 4y ago
        Because that’s not where children grow up to be socialized into such a lifestyle.
        dTal 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation tl;dr it's not a "lifestyle" and you're not "socialized" into it. The fact you believe otherwise is a very discomfiting recontextualization of your other remarks in this thread about "protecting children from groomers" and "filtering out the bad". People like you are precisely why children need the ability to communicate privately with non-parental figures - thank you for proving the FSF's point.
- dTal 4y ago
  >”bigoted parents”? Who are you refering to, FSF? Homophobes, I should imagine. For a start. >Here is the problem though: pedophiles and groomers do exist Abusive parents also exist. Rather more commonly than pedophiles too, I'll wager. > This gives power to the (bigoted lol) parents to filter out the bad and keep as much good as possible Can you not see the ways this might go horribly wrong? Have you never bumped into a brain-dead internet filter?
  - mildmotive 4y ago
    >Abusive parents also exist. Rather more commonly than pedophiles too, I'll wager. Saying that “parents can be abusive” isn’t an argument against giving parents in general authority over their children. Generally, parents are the most trustworthy individuals in a child’s life. Besides, if you widen the definition of abuse enough then you can turn 50% of parents abusive. Lots of deception has been done around the word “abuse” by silently widening the definition and then labeling people abusive to make it seem like they’re something they’re not.
    - dTal 4y ago
      >Generally, parents are the most trustworthy individuals in a child’s life. Citation needed. It's an argument against giving parents total authority. Have you heard the saying "it takes a village to raise a child"? This modern phenomenon of parents maintaining an iron grip over where children go, who they interact with, and what ideas they're exposed to is a historical aberration, and it's not healthy. Even now, as it is, we still spread that responsibility out - people who homeschool their children are viewed with some suspicion, the moreso if they keep them socially isolated while doing so, for it is frequently a sign of cult grooming. Children need protection and nurturing, yes, but they're still people who exist in society - not property.
      - mildmotive 4y ago
        >Citation needed. That parents are generally the most trustworthy individuals in a child's life should be common sense. I may not agree with every parent’s ideology or beliefs, but I will stand for their right to have a parental role in their own children’s lives. You seem to believe that this right should be revoked if their ideas on homosexuality don’t align with yours. >who they interact with Parents have a responsibility to make sure that their child is not interacting with people who might hurt them, or be a negative influence on them. >and what ideas they're exposed to Citation needed. I’m sure religious parents teach their children about homosexuality, they just mention it’s a sin rather than saying that it’s a person’s valid choice. They teach the moral standards that they believe are the truth and will benefit their child. You want to impose your standards of morality instead, which I’m saying is certainly not within your or the FSF’s right. >people who homeschool their children are viewed with some suspicion Really? I’ve never heard this opinion before. Homeschooling is perfectly fine, and parents that I’ve heard do it let their children interact with other children who’re homeschooled as well. They are thought together, at least sometimes. >they're still people who exist in society - not property Don’t lie. Don’t straw-man what I said. Parents have many rights over their children, but that does not mean that anybody here is likening them to a watch or a pair of slippers. These sorts of dishonest responses are getting tiresome.
- haswell 4y ago
  > ”bigoted parents”? Who are you refering to, FSF? They are referring to my parents, and other parents like them. Parents who are so disgusted by the idea of homosexuality that they will disown their kids or send them to "re-education" camps or retreats. Parents who force their kids to attend churches where leadership will actively talk about the sinfulness of being gay, and how such a thing is deserving of death by stoning and an eternity in hell. Parents who are more interested in enforcing puritanical beliefs during the most formative years of a kid's life than they are in ensuring their kids develop a healthy sense of self and psychological safety. This is not hyperbole, this was my childhood. My ability to find support outside of my family and church circle without intervention from my parents is arguably why I am alive today.
  - dvt 4y ago
    > Parents who force their kids to attend churches where leadership will actively talk about the sinfulness of being gay Interesting, some religions think it's sinful to eat pork or seafood or beef, and actively forbid it. Others think it's sinful to have premarital sex or to gamble or even to drink. I wonder how you feel about them. Should every child's upbringing adhere to your moral worldview? Or maybe mine? Or maybe the politician-du-jour?
    - dTal 4y ago
      Or mutilate genitals! Carrying this moral relativism to its logical conclusion, some people even think it's fine to lock their children up in the basement and father generations of incestuous offspring with them. Who are we to judge? I hope this reductio ad absurdem is a reminder that one shouldn't be too shy of imposing one's moral sensibilities on others - that is what they are for. My moral standard is that you shouldn't inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on people, bleeding heart liberal that I am. As such I am happy to condemn gay conversion therapy (along with genital mutilation and incestuous rape) as Bad (and forbidding eating beef as No Big Deal). This really isn't a live-and-let-live situation, it's a child abuse situation.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

26 points by favourable 4y ago

>we ought to respect minors enough to allow them secure and encrypted communications with one another, without the prying eyes of bigoted parents ”bigoted parents”? Who are you refering to, FSF? It’s the parents’ right to raise their children to adhere to any religious beliefs or ideologies, even those you do not agree with! Regardless, it’s not your job to dictate how parents should raise their children. Although a relationship of trust and respect of privacy should be established between a parent and their child, this should not be taken to an extreme. The internet can be quite wild, it’s neglectful to let your child consume whatever content they come across and speak to whomever they like. It’s a parent’s job to set healthy limits to these things. This does involve keeping a healthy culture of openness in the home, which contradicts the notion of privacy (from their “bigoted parents”) that you’re advocating children should have. I am a privacy advocate myself, and am against mass-surveillance by the state. Here is the problem though: pedophiles and groomers do exist. The way we mitigate this problem is not by giving the tyrants more power, it’s by empowering parents by providing them with the tools to limit exposure to these threats. This gives power to the (bigoted lol) parents to filter out the bad and keep as much good as possible. The companies that are bribing tyrants to partake in the surveillance system should have their leadership thrown in prison. The companies that provide solutions for us to protect our children should be rewarded and praised.

josephcsible 4y ago
Yeah, I agree with the FSF almost everywhere, but not here. Minors do not and should not have the right to communication that's private from their own parents.
- dTal 4y ago
  Not even in a situation of child abuse? Should gay teens in ultra-conservative households just suck it up and not talk about their sexuality with anyone ever until they're adults? Perfectly healthy I'm sure...
  - Ferrotin 4y ago
    They don’t need to talk about their biological urges with strangers.
    - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
      This would prevent them from doing so with _anyone_.
  - mildmotive 4y ago
    I’m fairly certain that most “gay teens” don’t come from ultra-conservative households.
    - dTal 4y ago
      Er, why?
      - mildmotive 4y ago
        Because that’s not where children grow up to be socialized into such a lifestyle.
        dTal 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation tl;dr it's not a "lifestyle" and you're not "socialized" into it. The fact you believe otherwise is a very discomfiting recontextualization of your other remarks in this thread about "protecting children from groomers" and "filtering out the bad". People like you are precisely why children need the ability to communicate privately with non-parental figures - thank you for proving the FSF's point.
dTal 4y ago
>”bigoted parents”? Who are you refering to, FSF? Homophobes, I should imagine. For a start. >Here is the problem though: pedophiles and groomers do exist Abusive parents also exist. Rather more commonly than pedophiles too, I'll wager. > This gives power to the (bigoted lol) parents to filter out the bad and keep as much good as possible Can you not see the ways this might go horribly wrong? Have you never bumped into a brain-dead internet filter?
- mildmotive 4y ago
  >Abusive parents also exist. Rather more commonly than pedophiles too, I'll wager. Saying that “parents can be abusive” isn’t an argument against giving parents in general authority over their children. Generally, parents are the most trustworthy individuals in a child’s life. Besides, if you widen the definition of abuse enough then you can turn 50% of parents abusive. Lots of deception has been done around the word “abuse” by silently widening the definition and then labeling people abusive to make it seem like they’re something they’re not.
  - dTal 4y ago
    >Generally, parents are the most trustworthy individuals in a child’s life. Citation needed. It's an argument against giving parents total authority. Have you heard the saying "it takes a village to raise a child"? This modern phenomenon of parents maintaining an iron grip over where children go, who they interact with, and what ideas they're exposed to is a historical aberration, and it's not healthy. Even now, as it is, we still spread that responsibility out - people who homeschool their children are viewed with some suspicion, the moreso if they keep them socially isolated while doing so, for it is frequently a sign of cult grooming. Children need protection and nurturing, yes, but they're still people who exist in society - not property.
    - mildmotive 4y ago
      >Citation needed. That parents are generally the most trustworthy individuals in a child's life should be common sense. I may not agree with every parent’s ideology or beliefs, but I will stand for their right to have a parental role in their own children’s lives. You seem to believe that this right should be revoked if their ideas on homosexuality don’t align with yours. >who they interact with Parents have a responsibility to make sure that their child is not interacting with people who might hurt them, or be a negative influence on them. >and what ideas they're exposed to Citation needed. I’m sure religious parents teach their children about homosexuality, they just mention it’s a sin rather than saying that it’s a person’s valid choice. They teach the moral standards that they believe are the truth and will benefit their child. You want to impose your standards of morality instead, which I’m saying is certainly not within your or the FSF’s right. >people who homeschool their children are viewed with some suspicion Really? I’ve never heard this opinion before. Homeschooling is perfectly fine, and parents that I’ve heard do it let their children interact with other children who’re homeschooled as well. They are thought together, at least sometimes. >they're still people who exist in society - not property Don’t lie. Don’t straw-man what I said. Parents have many rights over their children, but that does not mean that anybody here is likening them to a watch or a pair of slippers. These sorts of dishonest responses are getting tiresome.
haswell 4y ago
> ”bigoted parents”? Who are you refering to, FSF? They are referring to my parents, and other parents like them. Parents who are so disgusted by the idea of homosexuality that they will disown their kids or send them to "re-education" camps or retreats. Parents who force their kids to attend churches where leadership will actively talk about the sinfulness of being gay, and how such a thing is deserving of death by stoning and an eternity in hell. Parents who are more interested in enforcing puritanical beliefs during the most formative years of a kid's life than they are in ensuring their kids develop a healthy sense of self and psychological safety. This is not hyperbole, this was my childhood. My ability to find support outside of my family and church circle without intervention from my parents is arguably why I am alive today.
- dvt 4y ago
  > Parents who force their kids to attend churches where leadership will actively talk about the sinfulness of being gay Interesting, some religions think it's sinful to eat pork or seafood or beef, and actively forbid it. Others think it's sinful to have premarital sex or to gamble or even to drink. I wonder how you feel about them. Should every child's upbringing adhere to your moral worldview? Or maybe mine? Or maybe the politician-du-jour?
  - dTal 4y ago
    Or mutilate genitals! Carrying this moral relativism to its logical conclusion, some people even think it's fine to lock their children up in the basement and father generations of incestuous offspring with them. Who are we to judge? I hope this reductio ad absurdem is a reminder that one shouldn't be too shy of imposing one's moral sensibilities on others - that is what they are for. My moral standard is that you shouldn't inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on people, bleeding heart liberal that I am. As such I am happy to condemn gay conversion therapy (along with genital mutilation and incestuous rape) as Bad (and forbidding eating beef as No Big Deal). This really isn't a live-and-let-live situation, it's a child abuse situation.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]