3 ms·

I think that any creator of any tool should be faced on a regular basis with the harm that that tool causes and have to make the call on a regular basis if it's

I think that any creator of any tool should be faced on a regular basis with the harm that that tool causes and have to make the call on a regular basis if it's still worth it.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
So steel workers should get a subpoena they have no effective means to respond to on a regular basis because steel is used to make all manner of weapons and machinery that gets used by bad actors?
- lolinder 2y ago
  This is a bad faith comparison and I'm not going to engage with it.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    I'm honestly not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between them. Clearly any ordinary product can be used for nefarious purposes. The distinction some people try to draw is when a higher proportion of a product's users are nefarious, but that doesn't really work either because who uses something can change over time. If you have a society where nobody has window blinds or locks on their doors because it's a rural area and there is no one around to invade your privacy then locks will be disproportionately used by neerdowells "with something to hide", and then busybodies will claim that anyone with nothing to hide shouldn't be concealing their private spaces and anyone selling or using any privacy technology should be pressured to stop. Which sustains the status quo through external pressure even if someone does start invading everyone's privacy. And that's what's been happening on the internet. Surveillance is the default, Cloudflare et al block Tor users as a matter of course and that drives normal people from Tor and similar technologies even though they would otherwise benefit from its use. People are told that it's the dark web where there are criminals and they shouldn't use it -- it being Tor Browser, the thing that keeps ad networks from tracking them across the internet. Then after dispersing the normal users who would otherwise benefit from using it, people say that it has a lot of nefarious users to justify the continued harassment of anyone who does. But that's just path dependence, and there are parties interested in leading us down the garden path to mass surveillance.
    - Propelloni 2y ago
      > Clearly any ordinary product can be used for nefarious purposes. Right, I could kill a person with a spoon. Still we regulate guns and not spoons, why is that?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between them Cost versus benefit. Steel has massive, obvious benefits. That makes its costs worth it. On the other hand, several toxic compounds have no known benefits and are tighty regulated. You're trying to argue Tor's costs are worth its benefits. But that requires being clear-eyed about both. You can't build buildings and spaceships out of Tor. But neither can you fashion it into a gun. Unless you're arguing for solely action-based regulation, never access-based, which is its own idiotic can of worms.
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      I believe you are right. I have heard OP's argument many times before, it is almost akin to the "you only need privacy if you have something to hide" and whatnot; same kind of mentality. Everything could be used for nefarious purposes, and I do not think that is why we should "stop having nice things". By their logic, we should get rid of encryption, too, completely.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        You apparently read what you thought I was going to say and not what I actually wrote. This does not even begin to approach an accurate assessment of what I said or meant. I'm saying that too many people in this forum are too comfortable completely ignoring the harm that Tor causes, and in order to make a good judgement call about whether to run an exit node the harms need to be surfaced. Full stop. Everything else that you and others in this thread read into my comment is on you, not me.
        johnisgood 2y ago
        Tor does not inherently cause harm, though. Similarly to how E2EE does not cause harm, nor do platforms (or programs) where you are allowed to exchange messages. Do you agree with the first statement or not? If not, what are the differences between Tor and IM software with E2EE?
- zo1 2y ago
  You are talking into a void following this line of reasoning. There is no logical consistency in the context of a state and all the myriad of terms and concepts in its wake. That's by design and everyone that's brought up under it from a young age is taught to embrace that, as a feature. Your words are foreign invaders and every core of these smart people's beings will fight you with their ridiculously smart and well trained antibodies. Not trying to single out the person you're responding to, but I've seen this play out many times and engaged in it previously to no effect.
- numpad0 2y ago
  Aside from this being a bad faith comparison - no way you actually believe that steel rods and bars can't be subject to EAR
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    You can't justify a bad policy with a different bad policy. Trying to control access to a fungible global commodity is pointless.
    - numpad0 2y ago
      You've questioned existence of such "bad policy". I pointed out that there are such policies. I neither supported nor opposed them. I won't be surprised if there were something in US criminal code with supreme court precedents that specifically dictate the government harass in timely manners the makers of cutlery used in a mugging. There _are_ always laws. _Everything_ is regulated. Most of those regulations are reasonable.

I think that any creator of any tool should be faced on a regular basis with the harm that that tool causes and have to make the call on a regular basis if it's still worth it.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

So steel workers should get a subpoena they have no effective means to respond to on a regular basis because steel is used to make all manner of weapons and machinery that gets used by bad actors?

lolinder 2y ago
This is a bad faith comparison and I'm not going to engage with it.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  I'm honestly not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between them. Clearly any ordinary product can be used for nefarious purposes. The distinction some people try to draw is when a higher proportion of a product's users are nefarious, but that doesn't really work either because who uses something can change over time. If you have a society where nobody has window blinds or locks on their doors because it's a rural area and there is no one around to invade your privacy then locks will be disproportionately used by neerdowells "with something to hide", and then busybodies will claim that anyone with nothing to hide shouldn't be concealing their private spaces and anyone selling or using any privacy technology should be pressured to stop. Which sustains the status quo through external pressure even if someone does start invading everyone's privacy. And that's what's been happening on the internet. Surveillance is the default, Cloudflare et al block Tor users as a matter of course and that drives normal people from Tor and similar technologies even though they would otherwise benefit from its use. People are told that it's the dark web where there are criminals and they shouldn't use it -- it being Tor Browser, the thing that keeps ad networks from tracking them across the internet. Then after dispersing the normal users who would otherwise benefit from using it, people say that it has a lot of nefarious users to justify the continued harassment of anyone who does. But that's just path dependence, and there are parties interested in leading us down the garden path to mass surveillance.
  - Propelloni 2y ago
    > Clearly any ordinary product can be used for nefarious purposes. Right, I could kill a person with a spoon. Still we regulate guns and not spoons, why is that?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between them Cost versus benefit. Steel has massive, obvious benefits. That makes its costs worth it. On the other hand, several toxic compounds have no known benefits and are tighty regulated. You're trying to argue Tor's costs are worth its benefits. But that requires being clear-eyed about both. You can't build buildings and spaceships out of Tor. But neither can you fashion it into a gun. Unless you're arguing for solely action-based regulation, never access-based, which is its own idiotic can of worms.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    I believe you are right. I have heard OP's argument many times before, it is almost akin to the "you only need privacy if you have something to hide" and whatnot; same kind of mentality. Everything could be used for nefarious purposes, and I do not think that is why we should "stop having nice things". By their logic, we should get rid of encryption, too, completely.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      You apparently read what you thought I was going to say and not what I actually wrote. This does not even begin to approach an accurate assessment of what I said or meant. I'm saying that too many people in this forum are too comfortable completely ignoring the harm that Tor causes, and in order to make a good judgement call about whether to run an exit node the harms need to be surfaced. Full stop. Everything else that you and others in this thread read into my comment is on you, not me.
      - johnisgood 2y ago
        Tor does not inherently cause harm, though. Similarly to how E2EE does not cause harm, nor do platforms (or programs) where you are allowed to exchange messages. Do you agree with the first statement or not? If not, what are the differences between Tor and IM software with E2EE?
zo1 2y ago
You are talking into a void following this line of reasoning. There is no logical consistency in the context of a state and all the myriad of terms and concepts in its wake. That's by design and everyone that's brought up under it from a young age is taught to embrace that, as a feature. Your words are foreign invaders and every core of these smart people's beings will fight you with their ridiculously smart and well trained antibodies. Not trying to single out the person you're responding to, but I've seen this play out many times and engaged in it previously to no effect.
numpad0 2y ago
Aside from this being a bad faith comparison - no way you actually believe that steel rods and bars can't be subject to EAR
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  You can't justify a bad policy with a different bad policy. Trying to control access to a fungible global commodity is pointless.
  - numpad0 2y ago
    You've questioned existence of such "bad policy". I pointed out that there are such policies. I neither supported nor opposed them. I won't be surprised if there were something in US criminal code with supreme court precedents that specifically dictate the government harass in timely manners the makers of cutlery used in a mugging. There _are_ always laws. _Everything_ is regulated. Most of those regulations are reasonable.