4 ms·
1) Trust is a human-to-human interaction which depends on being able to predict future behavior from past behavior (and often other cues, whether rational or no
by martin-t 1y ago
1) Trust is a human-to-human interaction which depends on being able to predict future behavior from past behavior (and often other cues, whether rational or not).
Trusting an organization is a category error. You cannot trust something composed of people who are regularly replaced every few years and who operate according to written rules ("laws") which they are allowed to change.
2) "as I don't do anything illegal, they won't care" - This is a fallacy. First, they can absolutely harass you even if you end up winning in court eventually. Second, what is legal and illegal changes over time. Third, plenty of things which are illegal (wrong according to legality) are not wrong according to morality (they harm no-one) - they are just illegal because humans who feel the need to control others wrote down a piece of text describing punishments for them.
3) Plenty of countries have stupid laws.:
Example 1: it's illegal to approve illegal actions - which basically means you can't ever argue for to change the law to make something legal because you'd be approving it. Usually it's not enforced as such but given how the law is often phrased, it often can be.
Example 2: it's illegal to endorse the use of violence - this is the stupidest law there is:
- It is by definition contradictory because all governments base their power on violence[0] so according to this law you can't support the existence of the government itself.
- It's contradictory in how it treats historical and current actions. You are free to celebrate the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, The French Revolution or Us independence, even though they were all violent actions - they were morally good but illegal under the laws at the time. But you can't say that current dictators should be killed. A friend got a warning from reddit just yesterday for saying not that a certain dictator should be assassinated but that he should be sentenced to death and then executed by anyone in a position to do so.
[0]: The government has such a strong monopoly that the violence just needs to be implied and most people will submit and the rest are used as examples "this is why it's stupid to fight a cop".
- LocalH 1y ago> A friend got a warning from reddit just yesterday for saying not that a certain dictator should be assassinated but that he should be sentenced to death and then executed by anyone in a position to do so. A lot of social media today will sanction you if you say such things as "it's ok to punch a Nazi". But won't sanction a Nazi for saying things like "white replacement theory".
- account42 1y agoThat's how it should be but unfortunately a lot of social media will do the opposite of what you're suggesting.
- martin-t 1y agoYes, it's simple pattern matching. But they are gonna get better though, there are people working on using LLMs for surveillance right now. AFAIK it was automated, she appealed and won. But it has a chilling effect on people and some won't bother appealing. I'd do it anyway just to waste their time because they have to use a human to review. This is a good time to remind every tech worker that if you're working for an exploitative corporation, you have the moral obligation to do your job as poorly as you can: https://drewdevault.com/2025/04/20/2025-04-20-Tech-sector-restistance.html https://drewdevault.com/2025/04/20/2025-04-20-Tech-sector-re... --- Corporations these days have way more power to control speech than governments just a few decades ago and some people still refuse to call it censorship because they find some obscure definition which says it has to be done by a government. We will have to fight for the same freedoms as just a few generations ago because people learned nothing.