4 ms·

> How do you defend against that? I'm not sure you do... A tool is a tool. I wouldn't want my CAD software saying, "I think you're trying to CAD a pipe bomb so

by w4 2y ago

> How do you defend against that? I'm not sure you do... A tool is a tool. I wouldn't want my CAD software saying, "I think you're trying to CAD a pipe bomb so I'm going to shut down now." The core of the issue is that there are many people, including regulators, who wish that software did exactly that.

Waterluvian 2y ago
Yeah. And isn't that just... fascism? After you get past the stuff we pretty much all agree is evil, it very quickly enters into a subjective space where what's actually happening is that one group is deciding what's acceptable for all groups.
- CooCooCaCha 2y ago
  Fascism is ultranationalistism. It’s believing your culture, country, and people are fundamentally superior to others and therefore you are justified in spreading it against people’s will. “Blood and soil” and all that.
  - Waterluvian 2y ago
    I guess this gets into semantic pedantics. Believing one’s set of sensibilities is superior to all others and all that. But point taken.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
      No it's not pedantics, you just used a word totally wrong. CAD software preventing you from making a bomb is not fascism at all.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Strictly speaking, fascism is ultra-etatism - "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State", to quote Mussolini himself. It does not actually require an ethnic or racial component, although that is incredibly common in practice simply because those provide a readily adoptable basis for it all that strongly resonates with people with relatively simple and straightforward propaganda.
- w4 2y ago
  It certainly would not be a free society. Though as with all things human, all of this has happened before and all of this will happen again: "Charles II had re-turned to the English throne in 1660 and was appalled at the state of printing in his realm. Seditious, irreligious, pernicious, and scandalous books and pamphlets flooded the streets of London (among them the works of Milton and Hobbes)...[He] required that all intended publications be registered with the government-approved Stationers’ Company, thus giving the king his “royal prerogative”—and by extension, giving the Stationers the ultimate say in what got printed and what did not. ...it is not surprising to learn that the 1662 Act only met with partial success. One gets the sense that London in the late seventeenth century was a place where definitions of morality were highly subjective and authority was exercised in extremely uneven fashion." https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/17219056/677787.pdf https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/17219056/677787....

by w4 2y ago

Waterluvian 2y ago

Yeah. And isn't that just... fascism? After you get past the stuff we pretty much all agree is evil, it very quickly enters into a subjective space where what's actually happening is that one group is deciding what's acceptable for all groups.

CooCooCaCha 2y ago
Fascism is ultranationalistism. It’s believing your culture, country, and people are fundamentally superior to others and therefore you are justified in spreading it against people’s will. “Blood and soil” and all that.
- Waterluvian 2y ago
  I guess this gets into semantic pedantics. Believing one’s set of sensibilities is superior to all others and all that. But point taken.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
    No it's not pedantics, you just used a word totally wrong. CAD software preventing you from making a bomb is not fascism at all.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Strictly speaking, fascism is ultra-etatism - "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State", to quote Mussolini himself. It does not actually require an ethnic or racial component, although that is incredibly common in practice simply because those provide a readily adoptable basis for it all that strongly resonates with people with relatively simple and straightforward propaganda.
w4 2y ago
It certainly would not be a free society. Though as with all things human, all of this has happened before and all of this will happen again: "Charles II had re-turned to the English throne in 1660 and was appalled at the state of printing in his realm. Seditious, irreligious, pernicious, and scandalous books and pamphlets flooded the streets of London (among them the works of Milton and Hobbes)...[He] required that all intended publications be registered with the government-approved Stationers’ Company, thus giving the king his “royal prerogative”—and by extension, giving the Stationers the ultimate say in what got printed and what did not. ...it is not surprising to learn that the 1662 Act only met with partial success. One gets the sense that London in the late seventeenth century was a place where definitions of morality were highly subjective and authority was exercised in extremely uneven fashion." https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/17219056/677787.pdf https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/17219056/677787....