6 ms·

Well, that links to EFF's own "propaganda" - perpetuating privacy at all costs. Inevitably the place law and regulation should is somewhere in between, balancin

Well, that links to EFF's own "propaganda" - perpetuating privacy at all costs. Inevitably the place law and regulation should is somewhere in between, balancing risk and striving for an acceptable position all things considered within a democratic framework.

JoshTriplett 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground_fallacy It is never "inevitable" that the correct place for law and regulation is somewhere in the middle on every issue. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but it's never inevitable. Assuming that it is makes it far too easy to move the Overton window: regulation proposes something stricter than the status quo, "compromise" moves in that direction, repeat.
A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
> all things considered within a democratic framework The UK has a very funny (literally ha-ha funny) notion of "democracy" -- with people just voting against the status quo most of the time and with "first past the post" resulting in leadership that doesn't have, and cannot even credibly claim, genuine popular support. It's a totally broken system.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- BoxOfRain 2y ago
  If there is one political change I could make to the UK it'd be the adoption of the single transferable vote. There's massive amounts of political alienation in the UK which have complicated causes (often related to the 'managed decline' policies of governments past) but a big contributing factor in my opinion is how many votes are completely wasted under first past the post, if you're in a safe seat voting often feels completely futile. FPTP means there's a lot of seats where a donkey with the appropriate rosette would win easily and there's not a lot of competition to win these seats, and so these seats get taken for granted by politicians. A move to STV wouldn't be a silver bullet but at the very least it'd eliminate the phenomenon of wasted votes and make safe seats less safe, forcing politicians to care about all the seats rather than just currently competitive ones. The problem is there's no incentive for either major party to end their duopoly in the national interest, it's the same sort of problem the 'rotten boroughs' of old faced in that the people who benefitted from them were the only people with the power to deal with them. Labour in particular are notorious on this subject, they'll promise electoral reform in opposition and change their tune instantly once in power.
  - pas 2y ago
    are there term limits for these seats?
    - pjc50 2y ago
      There are no term limits. (I don't think there's any term limit for any elected position in the UK?)
    - BoxOfRain 2y ago
      No, term limits aren't really a thing in the UK for elected officials in general and the longest-serving MPs today have been there since the early '80s. Even Prime Ministers can stay in their position for as long as they have the support of their party and can command the confidence of the House of Commons which in some cases will be for over a decade, although it's normal practice in the UK for a governing party to change their leader and therefore the Prime Minister mid term. Some appointed positions have term limits (some 'machinery of government' kind of functions, some quangos and public bodies etc) but a few are for life or retirement such as members of the House of Lords.
- pas 2y ago
  how is it not popular support? or your point is that plurality is not enough? or that in a different voting system (alternate voting, ranked choice, etc..) the winner would be completely different?
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Conservatives + Reform got more votes than Labour. More people voted against Labour than for them. In any other system they wouldn't have won, and at the very least wouldn't have a majority. The other thing to consider is that the electorate basically moved to the right in 2024 (Tory voters moved to Reform), but parliament shifted hard to the left.
    - youngtaff 2y ago
      Not sure what your point is bit Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid combined got way more votes than Tories + Reform
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        Now that's a good point. They would need to actually debate things if parliament had this composition.
    - vogon_laureate 2y ago
      The Online Safety Act came into being under a Conservative government.
    - monooso 2y ago
      > In any other system they wouldn't have won… I can think of at least one other system where they would.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      The same is true of many different pairs of parties! It's been a long time since any winner had over 50% of the popular vote. 2024: 33% 2019: 43.6% 2017: 42.3% (Lab: 40%!) 2015: 36.9% 2010: 36.1% 2005: 35.2% 2001: 40.7% 1997: 43.2% 1992: 41.9% The last election where the winning party got over 50% of the popular vote was .. 1931.
pc86 2y ago
Why is it inevitable that we should continually erode one's right to privacy?
- vogon_laureate 2y ago
  Because pedophiles and terrorists exist and this is why we can't have nice things.
  - pc86 2y ago
    And things get nicer when you kill those people. 99.999% of the population of Earth will never be directly affected by either of those two things, so at the very least you're going to have to expand on how eroding the privacy of those 8 billion people will make their life better.
    - latentsea 2y ago
      Aren't the statistics on child sexual abuse pretty dire? They certainly don't line up with 99.999% of the population of earth being unaffected.
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    No we can't have nice things because of fascist lackies who use any excuse. If terrorists and pedophiles somehow didn't exist it would be spying or organized crime.

JoshTriplett 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground_fallacy It is never "inevitable" that the correct place for law and regulation is somewhere in the middle on every issue. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but it's never inevitable. Assuming that it is makes it far too easy to move the Overton window: regulation proposes something stricter than the status quo, "compromise" moves in that direction, repeat.

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago

> all things considered within a democratic framework The UK has a very funny (literally ha-ha funny) notion of "democracy" -- with people just voting against the status quo most of the time and with "first past the post" resulting in leadership that doesn't have, and cannot even credibly claim, genuine popular support. It's a totally broken system.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
BoxOfRain 2y ago
If there is one political change I could make to the UK it'd be the adoption of the single transferable vote. There's massive amounts of political alienation in the UK which have complicated causes (often related to the 'managed decline' policies of governments past) but a big contributing factor in my opinion is how many votes are completely wasted under first past the post, if you're in a safe seat voting often feels completely futile. FPTP means there's a lot of seats where a donkey with the appropriate rosette would win easily and there's not a lot of competition to win these seats, and so these seats get taken for granted by politicians. A move to STV wouldn't be a silver bullet but at the very least it'd eliminate the phenomenon of wasted votes and make safe seats less safe, forcing politicians to care about all the seats rather than just currently competitive ones. The problem is there's no incentive for either major party to end their duopoly in the national interest, it's the same sort of problem the 'rotten boroughs' of old faced in that the people who benefitted from them were the only people with the power to deal with them. Labour in particular are notorious on this subject, they'll promise electoral reform in opposition and change their tune instantly once in power.
- pas 2y ago
  are there term limits for these seats?
  - pjc50 2y ago
    There are no term limits. (I don't think there's any term limit for any elected position in the UK?)
  - BoxOfRain 2y ago
    No, term limits aren't really a thing in the UK for elected officials in general and the longest-serving MPs today have been there since the early '80s. Even Prime Ministers can stay in their position for as long as they have the support of their party and can command the confidence of the House of Commons which in some cases will be for over a decade, although it's normal practice in the UK for a governing party to change their leader and therefore the Prime Minister mid term. Some appointed positions have term limits (some 'machinery of government' kind of functions, some quangos and public bodies etc) but a few are for life or retirement such as members of the House of Lords.
pas 2y ago
how is it not popular support? or your point is that plurality is not enough? or that in a different voting system (alternate voting, ranked choice, etc..) the winner would be completely different?
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Conservatives + Reform got more votes than Labour. More people voted against Labour than for them. In any other system they wouldn't have won, and at the very least wouldn't have a majority. The other thing to consider is that the electorate basically moved to the right in 2024 (Tory voters moved to Reform), but parliament shifted hard to the left.
  - youngtaff 2y ago
    Not sure what your point is bit Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid combined got way more votes than Tories + Reform
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Now that's a good point. They would need to actually debate things if parliament had this composition.
  - vogon_laureate 2y ago
    The Online Safety Act came into being under a Conservative government.
  - monooso 2y ago
    > In any other system they wouldn't have won… I can think of at least one other system where they would.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    The same is true of many different pairs of parties! It's been a long time since any winner had over 50% of the popular vote. 2024: 33% 2019: 43.6% 2017: 42.3% (Lab: 40%!) 2015: 36.9% 2010: 36.1% 2005: 35.2% 2001: 40.7% 1997: 43.2% 1992: 41.9% The last election where the winning party got over 50% of the popular vote was .. 1931.

pc86 2y ago

Why is it inevitable that we should continually erode one's right to privacy?

vogon_laureate 2y ago
Because pedophiles and terrorists exist and this is why we can't have nice things.
- pc86 2y ago
  And things get nicer when you kill those people. 99.999% of the population of Earth will never be directly affected by either of those two things, so at the very least you're going to have to expand on how eroding the privacy of those 8 billion people will make their life better.
  - latentsea 2y ago
    Aren't the statistics on child sexual abuse pretty dire? They certainly don't line up with 99.999% of the population of earth being unaffected.
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  No we can't have nice things because of fascist lackies who use any excuse. If terrorists and pedophiles somehow didn't exist it would be spying or organized crime.