3 ms·

“Acceptable losses”? Totalitarians promise water filtration facilities for their citizens as well. Should we also question that infrastructure? Police can obt

“Acceptable losses”? Totalitarians promise water filtration facilities for their citizens as well. Should we also question that infrastructure? Police can obtain a warrant for searching your premises. Should we do away with this because of how this procedure would unfold under a totalitarian government? The root cause of your concerns is poverty. We can address that with other policies. We don’t need throw the baby out with the bath water.

Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
Water filtration is not a key enablement tech for totalitarianism, tightly controlling who says what in communication is.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  I never argued for tightly controlling information. Let 4chan and EFnet do their thing. But at least allow for people to build platforms that are non-anonymous. There is a cost to anonymity and it is never paid for by the person who is expressing themselves. Also, a water filtration plant could introduce psychotropic chemicals to placate a populace, so don’t let your guard down!
  - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
    No one is preventing companies from building platforms that are non-anonymous. What you argue for is that the government requires them and that society marginalises those who don't use them. And that sounds a lot like your core belief is that a big brother knows best and should control the other kids. And no, this is not about the government making digital auth easier. I am from europa, i have en eID card with a government issued private key. No one cares, unless there is regulation enforcing it. The demand to link social media to government issued identity is pretty much only coming from the siloviki, the law-and-order types, who talk accountability but want control.
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      Private companies cannot reliably verify personhood. This is a fundamental role of liberal democratic government. My core belief is that our concept of individuality resides on a shared framework. We already require many forms of identification in modern society. It is what allows for trusting interactions with strangers at a distance. We are currently suffering immensely from unknowable and untrustworthy interactions with strangers at a distance. This is the only way we can currently interact on the internet. As I point out in the latter of my articles, try to social engineer an employee at the DMV and see how far that gets you! Private companies can be socially engineered because they need to be kind and helpful to their customers. The person behind the counter at the DMV is only trying to move you along as quick as possible because they are in service to the state. In this case, this is a good thing!
      - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
        It is not only possible for companies, but required for many businesses that actually need that level of trust. And we would suffer even more if people would shy away from discussing, for example, unions, or politics, because everything they say will be added to their government issued permanent record. oh and you can hack the DMV with a fax machine, i've seen that on Mr Robot. If it's on TV it can't be fiction, because tv companies verify the identity of people whose stuff they broadcast.
        williamcotton 4y ago
        I have never argued for a ban on anonymity. People would still be able to organize for political purposes and in an anonymous manner. It is up to them to pay the price for such an approach to politics. Others should have the opportunity to not be subjected to your personal political opinions about eschewing any form of non-anonymous communication due to amorphous fears of totalitarianism. And those businesses that require ID? They require state issued ID. You cannot sell a million dollar company with just your 4chan handle. Due diligence requires a full background check. We already require state-issued ID for almost everything in a functioning modern society. Yet there is endless fear-mongering about even an optional system that puts the cost of communication on the sender and not solely on the recipient.

Jon_Lowtek 4y ago

Water filtration is not a key enablement tech for totalitarianism, tightly controlling who says what in communication is.

williamcotton 4y ago
I never argued for tightly controlling information. Let 4chan and EFnet do their thing. But at least allow for people to build platforms that are non-anonymous. There is a cost to anonymity and it is never paid for by the person who is expressing themselves. Also, a water filtration plant could introduce psychotropic chemicals to placate a populace, so don’t let your guard down!
- Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
  No one is preventing companies from building platforms that are non-anonymous. What you argue for is that the government requires them and that society marginalises those who don't use them. And that sounds a lot like your core belief is that a big brother knows best and should control the other kids. And no, this is not about the government making digital auth easier. I am from europa, i have en eID card with a government issued private key. No one cares, unless there is regulation enforcing it. The demand to link social media to government issued identity is pretty much only coming from the siloviki, the law-and-order types, who talk accountability but want control.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    Private companies cannot reliably verify personhood. This is a fundamental role of liberal democratic government. My core belief is that our concept of individuality resides on a shared framework. We already require many forms of identification in modern society. It is what allows for trusting interactions with strangers at a distance. We are currently suffering immensely from unknowable and untrustworthy interactions with strangers at a distance. This is the only way we can currently interact on the internet. As I point out in the latter of my articles, try to social engineer an employee at the DMV and see how far that gets you! Private companies can be socially engineered because they need to be kind and helpful to their customers. The person behind the counter at the DMV is only trying to move you along as quick as possible because they are in service to the state. In this case, this is a good thing!
    - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
      It is not only possible for companies, but required for many businesses that actually need that level of trust. And we would suffer even more if people would shy away from discussing, for example, unions, or politics, because everything they say will be added to their government issued permanent record. oh and you can hack the DMV with a fax machine, i've seen that on Mr Robot. If it's on TV it can't be fiction, because tv companies verify the identity of people whose stuff they broadcast.
      - williamcotton 4y ago
        I have never argued for a ban on anonymity. People would still be able to organize for political purposes and in an anonymous manner. It is up to them to pay the price for such an approach to politics. Others should have the opportunity to not be subjected to your personal political opinions about eschewing any form of non-anonymous communication due to amorphous fears of totalitarianism. And those businesses that require ID? They require state issued ID. You cannot sell a million dollar company with just your 4chan handle. Due diligence requires a full background check. We already require state-issued ID for almost everything in a functioning modern society. Yet there is endless fear-mongering about even an optional system that puts the cost of communication on the sender and not solely on the recipient.