3 ms·

Global rules for user privacy would be fantastic! But lets start by simply banning the most criminal organizations first. If the KGB, CCP, or any other group k

Global rules for user privacy would be fantastic! But lets start by simply banning the most criminal organizations first. If the KGB, CCP, or any other group known for imprisoning and killing literally millions of people is running a social network we need to block it right away. Bytedance has forced CCP members on their board and you can bet the government uses the user data, behavior data and biometrics to help squash dissent. Then we can move on to blocking the networks sharing data with less dangerous groups.

CyanBird 4y ago
> But lets start by simply banning the most criminal organizations first NSA and cghq have tapped onto the global fiber optic systems on a global scale and see spying on every single person on the planet with dragnet systems alongside as you say biometrics, and that includes US citizen data. Where does that fall into?
- Xeoncross 4y ago
  Who is the priority here? Stopping the US who is spying on everyone or stopping the CCP who is murdering hundreds of thousands of it's own citizens. You climb a mountain one step at a time.
- computerfriend 4y ago
  Lots of things can be bad at the same time. What NSA and GCHQ do is worth discussing, for sure. But it has nothing to do with this.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    The NSA and GCHQ can literally and legally do the exact same things. In what possible what does it have "nothing to do with this"? If you are making a list of the worst actors in terms of global surveillance, they have to be at the top... The only reasons not to include them are purely nationalistic.
    - computerfriend 4y ago
      Because it's a separate topic and you're engaging in whataboutism.
      - shkkmo 4y ago
        Literally the exact same topic: making a list of the worst infractors. Edit: Here's the summary of this thread so far: 1) Let's make a rule against it instead of just hitting companies based on their nationality 2) A rule would be great, but in the mean time let's target the worst actors 3) These US based spy agencies do a bunch of stuff that is similar, where are they on that list? 4) That's off topic whataboutism 5) Seems like the same topic, why is it different? 6) It just is, no explanation required Using "whataboutism" to try to shut down discussions you don't like is not intellectually interesting or useful.
        pksebben 4y ago
        I think we either need to narrowly define whataboutism or stop using it altogether. in discussions like these it takes the role of a hammer to beat anyone that questions American exceptionalism and it's kinda gross. it always goes along the lines of your thread; a: "hey, look at awful thing x <other country> is doing, we should do something about that" b: "we do that too, and it is bad. we should fix it" a: "that's whataboutism and it's off topic" where x includes, but is not limited to: class-based legal asymmetry, extralegal incarceration, the existence of a ruling class, unprovoked invasions of sovereign territory, race-based murder by state actors, news suppression... .. and mass surveillance with a political agenda. Were I to Don my tinfoil chapeau, I'd say there's a taste of astroturfing to conversations like these. Abusive patterns of social interaction that certainly seem like they're in service of a national agenda. But lacking proof, I won't.
        computerfriend 4y ago
        That's interesting, because I feel the exact same way but on the opposite side. "we do that too, and it is bad." just reads as deflection to me. This comment section is full of it and it's very tiresome.
- 2devnull 4y ago
  That falls into “whataboutism.”
  - xvector 4y ago
    I would say it falls into "pointing out hypocrisy."
    - 2devnull 4y ago
      We agree. “The other guys are hypocrites too” is a truism. Great power competition is real a thing. People tend to be hypocrites, and whatabouttism is commonplace. But we can do better.
unity1001 4y ago
> or any other group known for imprisoning and killing literally millions of people Neither KGB or CCP are 'known' for anything like that in 80% of the world. They aren't even 'known' for such things in majority of Europe. They are 'known' for that only in Angloamerica and sufficiently propagandized segments in its satellites. There isnt ONE single country which the Angloamerican establishment did not smear in the past 60 years. That's why 80% of the world literally stopped heeding anything it says.

CyanBird 4y ago

> But lets start by simply banning the most criminal organizations first NSA and cghq have tapped onto the global fiber optic systems on a global scale and see spying on every single person on the planet with dragnet systems alongside as you say biometrics, and that includes US citizen data. Where does that fall into?

Xeoncross 4y ago
Who is the priority here? Stopping the US who is spying on everyone or stopping the CCP who is murdering hundreds of thousands of it's own citizens. You climb a mountain one step at a time.
computerfriend 4y ago
Lots of things can be bad at the same time. What NSA and GCHQ do is worth discussing, for sure. But it has nothing to do with this.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  The NSA and GCHQ can literally and legally do the exact same things. In what possible what does it have "nothing to do with this"? If you are making a list of the worst actors in terms of global surveillance, they have to be at the top... The only reasons not to include them are purely nationalistic.
  - computerfriend 4y ago
    Because it's a separate topic and you're engaging in whataboutism.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      Literally the exact same topic: making a list of the worst infractors. Edit: Here's the summary of this thread so far: 1) Let's make a rule against it instead of just hitting companies based on their nationality 2) A rule would be great, but in the mean time let's target the worst actors 3) These US based spy agencies do a bunch of stuff that is similar, where are they on that list? 4) That's off topic whataboutism 5) Seems like the same topic, why is it different? 6) It just is, no explanation required Using "whataboutism" to try to shut down discussions you don't like is not intellectually interesting or useful.
      - pksebben 4y ago
        I think we either need to narrowly define whataboutism or stop using it altogether. in discussions like these it takes the role of a hammer to beat anyone that questions American exceptionalism and it's kinda gross. it always goes along the lines of your thread; a: "hey, look at awful thing x <other country> is doing, we should do something about that" b: "we do that too, and it is bad. we should fix it" a: "that's whataboutism and it's off topic" where x includes, but is not limited to: class-based legal asymmetry, extralegal incarceration, the existence of a ruling class, unprovoked invasions of sovereign territory, race-based murder by state actors, news suppression... .. and mass surveillance with a political agenda. Were I to Don my tinfoil chapeau, I'd say there's a taste of astroturfing to conversations like these. Abusive patterns of social interaction that certainly seem like they're in service of a national agenda. But lacking proof, I won't.
        computerfriend 4y ago
        That's interesting, because I feel the exact same way but on the opposite side. "we do that too, and it is bad." just reads as deflection to me. This comment section is full of it and it's very tiresome.
2devnull 4y ago
That falls into “whataboutism.”
- xvector 4y ago
  I would say it falls into "pointing out hypocrisy."
  - 2devnull 4y ago
    We agree. “The other guys are hypocrites too” is a truism. Great power competition is real a thing. People tend to be hypocrites, and whatabouttism is commonplace. But we can do better.

unity1001 4y ago

> or any other group known for imprisoning and killing literally millions of people Neither KGB or CCP are 'known' for anything like that in 80% of the world. They aren't even 'known' for such things in majority of Europe. They are 'known' for that only in Angloamerica and sufficiently propagandized segments in its satellites. There isnt ONE single country which the Angloamerican establishment did not smear in the past 60 years. That's why 80% of the world literally stopped heeding anything it says.