4 ms·

That is not a requirement though. And if it came in I would be against it. So what is your point?

by celticninja 1y ago

pjc50 1y ago
Yet. This slope looks very slippery in the year of the Online Safety Act.
- ruszki 1y ago
  With your logic, everything can be used, or change to be used in a bad way, so nothing should be changed. There is never a guarantee. Seriously, is there anything which cannot be changed to be shit, in the best case to be a worthless money pit? Edit: btw this proposal already has something which can be criticised: ID on mobile phones… so probably they’d lock everybody into a duopoly.
  - DangitBobby 1y ago
    You're arguing that the installation of a literal surveillance apparatus should be tolerated because technology can almost always be used for evil.
    - ruszki 1y ago
      No, I’m arguing that it can be used for good, and it shouldn’t be dismissed when it cannot be used for evil things by law, especially not because of future possible evil usage, because that’s true for everything. Btw, why do use the internet? It’s quite contradictory to argue about this here. And that is the case since almost its inception.
      - DangitBobby 1y ago
        Everything can be used for bad or good, some things the balance is so bad they aren't worth considering.
        ruszki 1y ago
        There is no difference between changing a law more, than less. It can be done the same way, with a single vote. So the balance doesn't matter at all, especially that voters clearly don't make distinctions based on that.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    Yes, let's build the nuke and then put it in the center of London with a big red button. But don't worry, nobody will push the button. Or, proposal B: don't build the nuke.
    - ruszki 1y ago
      Yes? They can kill half Europe with a single nuclear power plant if they really want. They are safe only for accidents, and external sabotage. They are absolutely not for intentional internal fuck ups. The whole system is built on that most workers there don’t want that. The whole system is built on trust.
gadders 1y ago
Like they wouldn't bring it in to combat "mis-information" i.e. viewpoints they don't like.
EasyMark 1y ago
What do you have to hide? Why are you against adding just a little more to the law to protect the children?

That is not a requirement though. And if it came in I would be against it. So what is your point?

pjc50 1y ago

Yet. This slope looks very slippery in the year of the Online Safety Act.

ruszki 1y ago
With your logic, everything can be used, or change to be used in a bad way, so nothing should be changed. There is never a guarantee. Seriously, is there anything which cannot be changed to be shit, in the best case to be a worthless money pit? Edit: btw this proposal already has something which can be criticised: ID on mobile phones… so probably they’d lock everybody into a duopoly.
- DangitBobby 1y ago
  You're arguing that the installation of a literal surveillance apparatus should be tolerated because technology can almost always be used for evil.
  - ruszki 1y ago
    No, I’m arguing that it can be used for good, and it shouldn’t be dismissed when it cannot be used for evil things by law, especially not because of future possible evil usage, because that’s true for everything. Btw, why do use the internet? It’s quite contradictory to argue about this here. And that is the case since almost its inception.
    - DangitBobby 1y ago
      Everything can be used for bad or good, some things the balance is so bad they aren't worth considering.
      - ruszki 1y ago
        There is no difference between changing a law more, than less. It can be done the same way, with a single vote. So the balance doesn't matter at all, especially that voters clearly don't make distinctions based on that.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  Yes, let's build the nuke and then put it in the center of London with a big red button. But don't worry, nobody will push the button. Or, proposal B: don't build the nuke.
  - ruszki 1y ago
    Yes? They can kill half Europe with a single nuclear power plant if they really want. They are safe only for accidents, and external sabotage. They are absolutely not for intentional internal fuck ups. The whole system is built on that most workers there don’t want that. The whole system is built on trust.

gadders 1y ago

Like they wouldn't bring it in to combat "mis-information" i.e. viewpoints they don't like.

EasyMark 1y ago

What do you have to hide? Why are you against adding just a little more to the law to protect the children?