2 ms·
Malicious compliance is not the answer here. The system should not be made. Period. It's a primitive kept out of current existence due to it's critical role in
by salawat 1y ago
Malicious compliance is not the answer here. The system should not be made. Period. It's a primitive kept out of current existence due to it's critical role in providing a foundation for a tyranny. Think about this. The question being asked is to deliver a technical implementation with high reliability to elicit and enforce a signal cross population. It's the wannabe tyrant's wet dream; even cloaked in the sheep's wool of "Think of the Children". We don't either ethically or morally have the right of it to craft these chains. Once done for this test case, it'll be propagated everywhere else.
We don't need it. We shouldn't want it.
- bell-cot 1y agoIt's quite a stretch to say that giving a legitimate gov't what it demands is "malicious compliance". How often might you openly break the law, out of principled concern for the public good? "System should not be made" is more credible. But saying that huge for-profit corporations should have fiat licenses to say "no" to laws and regulations from legitimate governments is not. That's just trying to shift responsibility to some convenient victim or bystander, when you don't like what a policeman did.