4 ms·

I agree with the OP, that it is a form of gaslighting. I haven't read the fact checking websites in a while, but seeing them now it's clear that they exhibit po

I agree with the OP, that it is a form of gaslighting. I haven't read the fact checking websites in a while, but seeing them now it's clear that they exhibit political bias just like most news organizations these days while having the veneer of being unbiased; such a shame. For example, here is the article headline on PolitiFact: The 2021 infrastructure bill requires all new vehicles to have kill switches that will stop vehicle operation and alert law enforcement when drivers are impaired. Which is rated "Mostly False." Why isn't it rated "Half True?" Literally one half of the statement is true and the other false according to their own article. Their first section is titled: In-vehicle technology is coming to stop impaired drivers, but it does not involve law enforcement and the TL;DR is: * The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 mandated that within three years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must create in-vehicle technology to hinder people who are under the influence from driving. But third parties, including law enforcement, will not have access to the in-vehicle systems or be able to see drivers’ results. * The administration partnered with the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety to create the technology that is expected to monitor drivers’ alcohol levels using sensors and infrared lights in vehicles. If the system detects a blood alcohol level above 0.08%, the vehicle will not move.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago
This isn’t advanced math. A AND B is false if either A or B is false.
- nsagent 3y ago
  Please constructively add to the conversation rather than trotting out poorly reasoned quips. Clearly, natural language is not formal logic [1]. And even if it was, the statement doesn't necessarily translate into formal logic so straightforwardly [2]. [1]: https://www.argumentninja.com/view/courses/vl-principles-of-argument-analysis/44942-how-to-think-about-the-logical-connectives-in-propositional-logic/129977-the-difference-between-natural-languages-and-formal-languages https://www.argumentninja.com/view/courses/vl-principles-of-... [2]: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2359592 https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2359592
jameshart 3y ago
The problem with claiming the law mandates a ‘kill switch’ is that most people on reading that claim will assume it means a remote kill switch. The law does not mandate - or even contemplate - a remote kill switch. So saying this is a ‘kill switch’ law is misleading. If you want to call it something snappy, a less emotive word like ‘lockout’ might be appropriate. People choosing to call this a kill switch are making an emotive, inaccurate word choice to advance an agenda. That is precisely the kind of behavior fact checking is intended to correct.
- hooverd 3y ago
  People have object permanence and see "local, for now" kill switches and cars having cellular modems and the security state in the last two decades and put it all together.
  - jameshart 3y ago
    Ah. Paranoia and the slippery slope. Always a compelling argument.
eesmith 3y ago
The requirement does not apply to all new vehicles right way, nor even after the NHTSA requirement goes into place, but between 2-3 years after that requirement. And the requirement can be pushed back a few years if needed. A safety interlock is not a kill switch. The bill does not require a kill switch nor safety interlock! It says only "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". The "or" is important. From the risk paper I linked to earlier at https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pd..., "Depending on the intended use of the device, a range of outcomes might occur; the car could be prevented from being put in gear, could be limited to lower top speed using a “limp mode,” or the driver could simply be given a warning." The first two of those would definitely "limit motor operation" as required by the law, but the middle is not meaningfully described as a kill switch. The details of how it should work are yet to be decided.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

This isn’t advanced math. A AND B is false if either A or B is false.

nsagent 3y ago
Please constructively add to the conversation rather than trotting out poorly reasoned quips. Clearly, natural language is not formal logic [1]. And even if it was, the statement doesn't necessarily translate into formal logic so straightforwardly [2]. [1]: https://www.argumentninja.com/view/courses/vl-principles-of-argument-analysis/44942-how-to-think-about-the-logical-connectives-in-propositional-logic/129977-the-difference-between-natural-languages-and-formal-languages https://www.argumentninja.com/view/courses/vl-principles-of-... [2]: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2359592 https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2359592

jameshart 3y ago

The problem with claiming the law mandates a ‘kill switch’ is that most people on reading that claim will assume it means a remote kill switch. The law does not mandate - or even contemplate - a remote kill switch. So saying this is a ‘kill switch’ law is misleading. If you want to call it something snappy, a less emotive word like ‘lockout’ might be appropriate. People choosing to call this a kill switch are making an emotive, inaccurate word choice to advance an agenda. That is precisely the kind of behavior fact checking is intended to correct.

hooverd 3y ago
People have object permanence and see "local, for now" kill switches and cars having cellular modems and the security state in the last two decades and put it all together.
- jameshart 3y ago
  Ah. Paranoia and the slippery slope. Always a compelling argument.

eesmith 3y ago

The requirement does not apply to all new vehicles right way, nor even after the NHTSA requirement goes into place, but between 2-3 years after that requirement. And the requirement can be pushed back a few years if needed. A safety interlock is not a kill switch. The bill does not require a kill switch nor safety interlock! It says only "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". The "or" is important. From the risk paper I linked to earlier at https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pd..., "Depending on the intended use of the device, a range of outcomes might occur; the car could be prevented from being put in gear, could be limited to lower top speed using a “limp mode,” or the driver could simply be given a warning." The first two of those would definitely "limit motor operation" as required by the law, but the middle is not meaningfully described as a kill switch. The details of how it should work are yet to be decided.