3 ms·

yep. I'm getting really weary of these shallow protests about protecting anonymity and "technology" above all else, that are grounded in some sort of vague idea

yep. I'm getting really weary of these shallow protests about protecting anonymity and "technology" above all else, that are grounded in some sort of vague idea that technology is beyond moral reproach or has a mind of its own, and isn't in fact just an extension of ordinary, and in the case of this article, mean-spirited and cruelty-motivated human intent. These deflecting arguments amount to no more than a modern irreligious version of "the s/devil/technology made us do it"

lrvick 3y ago
You seem to imply we should have centralized government mandated control over all technology that allows online communication. Countries have tried this experiment like China and North Korea, and it seems to only serve those in power, not the public. Let us say we did ban all open source decentralized technology in the US, and all websites that to not follow government rules, and mandate all digital communication in the US happen via government approved apps and devices. How long do you think it will take before a US president with authoritarian ambitions decides to take advantage of this single point of failure? Free anonymous and private communication is mandatory for a functional democracy. It has some bad side effects, but the side effects of not having it are most assuredly worse.
- palata 3y ago
  > Free anonymous and private communication is mandatory for a functional democracy. Out of curiosity: can you mention one democracy where people generally have "free anonymous and private communication"?
  - lrvick 3y ago
    The US? All of them? I can't think of a single democracy where journalists, dissidents, and whistle blowers are not able to communicate and coordinate or even transact with others anonymously and privately when needed, thanks to decentralized tools like encrypted email, matrix, tor, bitcoin, etc. In fact sometimes when a given state oversteps, like Texas on abortion, it is -critical- that people can communicate anonymously to preserve basic human rights that other states still recognize. If that was ever restricted we are in for a world of pain.
    - palata 3y ago
      Sorry, I'm actually not sure what your initial point was. I guess I just reacted to "Free anonymous and private communication is mandatory for a functional democracy". Most people and companies don't use encryption to protect themselves against governments, even though it would not be that hard (one could use ProtonMail for company e-mails, Signal/Threema/Matrix for messaging, etc, but instead everybody seems to be using GMail and Slack/Teams). Being anonymous is actually hard. So yeah, the only thing that "somehow" prevents the US government from spying on everybody is law, because they clearly have had the capability for a long time. And given the occasional whistleblower, it feels like it's not actually enough. Actually I would even wonder if access to fairly-anonymous and private communication is not more important in non-democracies. Because in a functioning democracy you should be able to discuss matters more freely (at least to some extent). Anyway that's probably off topic, and I didn't mean to say that governments should ban encryption (encryption does exist, bad actors will always be able to use it even if you ban it). But that does not mean that governments should not interfere with technology in general, I would say. Yeah not sure, maybe I'm completely off topic here.
      - lrvick 3y ago
        The point on topic is that people must pick one: 1. allow encrypted anonymous communication and the ability to use that to defend democracy 2. disallow encrypted anonymous communication and the ability to get away with sharing deepfake nudes Both of these are bad, but one is clearly much worse than the other. Anyone calling for steps as drastic as internet censorship to stop one comparatively minor issue are clearly unaware of the consequences of that road.
        ChainOfFools 3y ago
        Or the other option which is the much less glamorous route of improving the visibility, accountability and transparency of centralized control, rather than writing it off as a lost cause from first principles. This is especially relevant given that every decentralized system is actually an illusion, a merely temporary state of transition from one centralized regime to the next.

lrvick 3y ago

You seem to imply we should have centralized government mandated control over all technology that allows online communication. Countries have tried this experiment like China and North Korea, and it seems to only serve those in power, not the public. Let us say we did ban all open source decentralized technology in the US, and all websites that to not follow government rules, and mandate all digital communication in the US happen via government approved apps and devices. How long do you think it will take before a US president with authoritarian ambitions decides to take advantage of this single point of failure? Free anonymous and private communication is mandatory for a functional democracy. It has some bad side effects, but the side effects of not having it are most assuredly worse.

palata 3y ago
> Free anonymous and private communication is mandatory for a functional democracy. Out of curiosity: can you mention one democracy where people generally have "free anonymous and private communication"?
- lrvick 3y ago
  The US? All of them? I can't think of a single democracy where journalists, dissidents, and whistle blowers are not able to communicate and coordinate or even transact with others anonymously and privately when needed, thanks to decentralized tools like encrypted email, matrix, tor, bitcoin, etc. In fact sometimes when a given state oversteps, like Texas on abortion, it is -critical- that people can communicate anonymously to preserve basic human rights that other states still recognize. If that was ever restricted we are in for a world of pain.
  - palata 3y ago
    Sorry, I'm actually not sure what your initial point was. I guess I just reacted to "Free anonymous and private communication is mandatory for a functional democracy". Most people and companies don't use encryption to protect themselves against governments, even though it would not be that hard (one could use ProtonMail for company e-mails, Signal/Threema/Matrix for messaging, etc, but instead everybody seems to be using GMail and Slack/Teams). Being anonymous is actually hard. So yeah, the only thing that "somehow" prevents the US government from spying on everybody is law, because they clearly have had the capability for a long time. And given the occasional whistleblower, it feels like it's not actually enough. Actually I would even wonder if access to fairly-anonymous and private communication is not more important in non-democracies. Because in a functioning democracy you should be able to discuss matters more freely (at least to some extent). Anyway that's probably off topic, and I didn't mean to say that governments should ban encryption (encryption does exist, bad actors will always be able to use it even if you ban it). But that does not mean that governments should not interfere with technology in general, I would say. Yeah not sure, maybe I'm completely off topic here.
    - lrvick 3y ago
      The point on topic is that people must pick one: 1. allow encrypted anonymous communication and the ability to use that to defend democracy 2. disallow encrypted anonymous communication and the ability to get away with sharing deepfake nudes Both of these are bad, but one is clearly much worse than the other. Anyone calling for steps as drastic as internet censorship to stop one comparatively minor issue are clearly unaware of the consequences of that road.
      - ChainOfFools 3y ago
        Or the other option which is the much less glamorous route of improving the visibility, accountability and transparency of centralized control, rather than writing it off as a lost cause from first principles. This is especially relevant given that every decentralized system is actually an illusion, a merely temporary state of transition from one centralized regime to the next.