5 ms·

That's pretty bad - I don't think it's a good government pattern to move policing to corporations or the population. It messes quite badly with established prin

by harha 3y ago

That's pretty bad - I don't think it's a good government pattern to move policing to corporations or the population. It messes quite badly with established principles such as innocent until proven guilty because corporations or individuals won't want to face the risk and it's also inefficient for each entity to figure out a process (and implement that badly).

version_five 3y ago
[flagged]
- harha 3y ago
  that and KYC
- croes 3y ago
  Which one?
  - lampshades 3y ago
    I'm assuming he's referring to the constant attempts at suppression of information.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - croes 3y ago
      Much of this information was also BS. The vaccinated are still pretty much alive and didn't die because of AIDS
      - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
        1. That is not the point. Truly liberal and progressive societies should tolerate and be immune to disinformation without censorship. 2. What is known to be false now may be true later (and vice-versa). No matter how big the govt. or a company gets, it won't be omniscient. 3. Remember the well documented flip flop about masks. At one point, CDC/Fauci were the ones spreading disinformation. During the flip-flop, real information was censored. Also, the lab leak theory was initially ruled out to be 100% impossible and heavily censored, now the same folks are saying that it might have been possible.
        yodawgz 3y ago
        [dead]
        cscurmudgeon 3y ago
        Since the sibling comment has been flagged dead, I find it absolutely hilarious that the commenter who says "we should all touch grass" created a new account to just reply to this comment while sitting in a public park. Apparently, touching grass is not enough for them. > What’s really happening is a bunch of armchair philosophers are engaged in prosaic armchair philosophy about how much of a police state the world is Meanwhile here I am at a public park launching Estes powered rockets You all should go touch grass. Sedentary exercise or language faculties is not healthy
        croes 3y ago
        There is no truly liberal and progressive society, and we are not immune to disinformation. And Fauci had a reason for that flip-flop. https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20c6-8735-4022-a1f5-1580bc732c45 https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20... What would you have done in that situation?
- xp84 3y ago
  Seems a poor fit for “government outsourcing…censorship.” Government didn’t do anything to cause it to happen. It looked to me like some companies exercising their first amendment right to choose what they allow on their wholly-owned websites. Nobody was stopped or even discouraged from setting up their own websites to spread their hysteria. But I know Elon Musk thought that was censorship. Idk maybe they didn’t require much constitutional knowledge on his citizenship test.
hgsgm 3y ago
That principle is about imprisonment. We have laws about driving properly, not because drivers are guilty of crimes. "Chilling effects" is a better argument. Infringing sites are already illegal, so blocking them is in realm of government purview. The objections are not about blocking these sites; they are about the ancillary risks of creating an abusable power.
vegetablepotpie 3y ago
It’s about convenience for the government. To take a site down by other means requires contacting ISPs to not route packets from an IP address or contact the site owner with legal action. This requires labor on the governments part. Consequently there are a lot of gaps in this approach. For example, wahapedia is a mirror for Warhammer 40k rules. Games Workshop, the rule book authors, would be happy for the site to be inaccessible, but since the site is hosted in Russia, and they don’t respect western IP laws, it continues to stay up. The less the government has to do, the lower your taxes in theory. Exporting government functions to private institutions is very common. For example, many legal agreements have forced arbitration clauses. It is perfectly acceptable for two consenting parties to agree to alternative dispute resolutions outside of court. Except one of those parties (the customer) has no ability to influence the wording of the contract and all vendors have the same arbitration clauses. Consumers pay for it in the form of lower value and higher prices. Many municipalities require new construction to have homeowners associations. They don’t want to have to deal with all the resident disagreements. These HOAs charge a fee to residents for the upkeep of the services in the community (like a government), and have legal means to enforce transgressions such as foreclosure on your home (like a government). But there is also another government over it, they still charge you property taxes (which ostensibly pays for those services) and those taxes haven’t gone down. So yes, not only is moving government functions to private entities inefficient, and there’s plenty of examples of to back it up, it just shifts responsibility around and ultimately costs regular people more.
- harha 3y ago
  I don’t think this is the only reason. Government gains much more control when they can count on bad incentives to avoid people from being able to go through the due process. When the ISP (or bank) becomes not only the service provider but also police and judge at the same time, they can simply block you and you’re left with no alternative
coldtea 3y ago
That train has long left the station. The modern state has outsourced all kinds of policing, surveillance, propaganda, and other functions to corporations.

by harha 3y ago

version_five 3y ago

[flagged]

harha 3y ago
that and KYC
croes 3y ago
Which one?
- lampshades 3y ago
  I'm assuming he's referring to the constant attempts at suppression of information.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - croes 3y ago
    Much of this information was also BS. The vaccinated are still pretty much alive and didn't die because of AIDS
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      1. That is not the point. Truly liberal and progressive societies should tolerate and be immune to disinformation without censorship. 2. What is known to be false now may be true later (and vice-versa). No matter how big the govt. or a company gets, it won't be omniscient. 3. Remember the well documented flip flop about masks. At one point, CDC/Fauci were the ones spreading disinformation. During the flip-flop, real information was censored. Also, the lab leak theory was initially ruled out to be 100% impossible and heavily censored, now the same folks are saying that it might have been possible.
      - yodawgz 3y ago
        [dead]
      - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
        Since the sibling comment has been flagged dead, I find it absolutely hilarious that the commenter who says "we should all touch grass" created a new account to just reply to this comment while sitting in a public park. Apparently, touching grass is not enough for them. > What’s really happening is a bunch of armchair philosophers are engaged in prosaic armchair philosophy about how much of a police state the world is Meanwhile here I am at a public park launching Estes powered rockets You all should go touch grass. Sedentary exercise or language faculties is not healthy
      - croes 3y ago
        There is no truly liberal and progressive society, and we are not immune to disinformation. And Fauci had a reason for that flip-flop. https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20c6-8735-4022-a1f5-1580bc732c45 https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20... What would you have done in that situation?
xp84 3y ago
Seems a poor fit for “government outsourcing…censorship.” Government didn’t do anything to cause it to happen. It looked to me like some companies exercising their first amendment right to choose what they allow on their wholly-owned websites. Nobody was stopped or even discouraged from setting up their own websites to spread their hysteria. But I know Elon Musk thought that was censorship. Idk maybe they didn’t require much constitutional knowledge on his citizenship test.

hgsgm 3y ago

That principle is about imprisonment. We have laws about driving properly, not because drivers are guilty of crimes. "Chilling effects" is a better argument. Infringing sites are already illegal, so blocking them is in realm of government purview. The objections are not about blocking these sites; they are about the ancillary risks of creating an abusable power.

vegetablepotpie 3y ago

It’s about convenience for the government. To take a site down by other means requires contacting ISPs to not route packets from an IP address or contact the site owner with legal action. This requires labor on the governments part. Consequently there are a lot of gaps in this approach. For example, wahapedia is a mirror for Warhammer 40k rules. Games Workshop, the rule book authors, would be happy for the site to be inaccessible, but since the site is hosted in Russia, and they don’t respect western IP laws, it continues to stay up. The less the government has to do, the lower your taxes in theory. Exporting government functions to private institutions is very common. For example, many legal agreements have forced arbitration clauses. It is perfectly acceptable for two consenting parties to agree to alternative dispute resolutions outside of court. Except one of those parties (the customer) has no ability to influence the wording of the contract and all vendors have the same arbitration clauses. Consumers pay for it in the form of lower value and higher prices. Many municipalities require new construction to have homeowners associations. They don’t want to have to deal with all the resident disagreements. These HOAs charge a fee to residents for the upkeep of the services in the community (like a government), and have legal means to enforce transgressions such as foreclosure on your home (like a government). But there is also another government over it, they still charge you property taxes (which ostensibly pays for those services) and those taxes haven’t gone down. So yes, not only is moving government functions to private entities inefficient, and there’s plenty of examples of to back it up, it just shifts responsibility around and ultimately costs regular people more.

harha 3y ago
I don’t think this is the only reason. Government gains much more control when they can count on bad incentives to avoid people from being able to go through the due process. When the ISP (or bank) becomes not only the service provider but also police and judge at the same time, they can simply block you and you’re left with no alternative

coldtea 3y ago

That train has long left the station. The modern state has outsourced all kinds of policing, surveillance, propaganda, and other functions to corporations.