4 ms·

Problem is, that it sets a precedent, and next they will come for other websites whose ban will strike you as "bad". Edit: I can definitely see them banning an

Problem is, that it sets a precedent, and next they will come for other websites whose ban will strike you as "bad". Edit: I can definitely see them banning anything related to Linux and resources related to OSes because of how processes can be handled, e.g. "kill parent", "kill child", and so on. The term "kill" already has to be censored out on many websites. Of course context matters, but people really have difficulties with this these days.

vkou 11mo ago
While your slippery slope argument can be applied to literally anything that children are restricted from, it consistently fails to materialize. Perhaps it's predictive power is not as expansive as you think.
- nottorp 11mo ago
  They won't ban Linux for containing "kill" but because it teaches kids to "hack" :)
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway48476 11mo ago
    Talk to your kids about the danger of using 'linux' today! https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-police-distance-themselves-from-poster-warning-parents-to-report-kids-for-using-kali-linux/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-police-distance-themselves-...
- threatofrain 11mo ago
  I think there is such thing as a moat on legislative and cultural movement, whether that moat is good or not. So rather than "slippery slope" I think of it more like reducing or building moats.
lm28469 11mo ago
You can use this train of thought to argue against laws in general, it doesn't sound like a very strong argument
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 11mo ago
  Within this context, how? I do not think it can be used to argue against laws in general. Plus we have a lot of experiences now about it setting a precedent and them coming for your beloved websites. It is not even debatable today.
  - cassepipe 11mo ago
    Laws tend to set precedents (that may be used to justify other laws)
    - johnisgood 11mo ago
      Yeah, so should we have something like Chat Control and more, similar regulation(s)? It really is not so far off from banning platforms. I remember when people were trash-talking China for doing this, and now "we" are doing the same thing we initially opposed. I suppose people may only start opposing it when it starts to affect them.
      - lm28469 11mo ago
        "we" do what china did because they're beating us at our own games. It's "free market" until BYD shows up, it's "no regulations" until tiktok shows up Allowing everything from everyone doesn't automagically make "us" the good guys
        johnisgood 11mo ago
        > Allowing everything from everyone doesn't automagically make "us" the good guys I never implied this, that would be silly on many fronts. Are you in favor of Chat Control or not? Why?

vkou 11mo ago

While your slippery slope argument can be applied to literally anything that children are restricted from, it consistently fails to materialize. Perhaps it's predictive power is not as expansive as you think.

nottorp 11mo ago
They won't ban Linux for containing "kill" but because it teaches kids to "hack" :)
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway48476 11mo ago
  Talk to your kids about the danger of using 'linux' today! https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-police-distance-themselves-from-poster-warning-parents-to-report-kids-for-using-kali-linux/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-police-distance-themselves-...
threatofrain 11mo ago
I think there is such thing as a moat on legislative and cultural movement, whether that moat is good or not. So rather than "slippery slope" I think of it more like reducing or building moats.

lm28469 11mo ago

You can use this train of thought to argue against laws in general, it doesn't sound like a very strong argument

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 11mo ago
Within this context, how? I do not think it can be used to argue against laws in general. Plus we have a lot of experiences now about it setting a precedent and them coming for your beloved websites. It is not even debatable today.
- cassepipe 11mo ago
  Laws tend to set precedents (that may be used to justify other laws)
  - johnisgood 11mo ago
    Yeah, so should we have something like Chat Control and more, similar regulation(s)? It really is not so far off from banning platforms. I remember when people were trash-talking China for doing this, and now "we" are doing the same thing we initially opposed. I suppose people may only start opposing it when it starts to affect them.
    - lm28469 11mo ago
      "we" do what china did because they're beating us at our own games. It's "free market" until BYD shows up, it's "no regulations" until tiktok shows up Allowing everything from everyone doesn't automagically make "us" the good guys
      - johnisgood 11mo ago
        > Allowing everything from everyone doesn't automagically make "us" the good guys I never implied this, that would be silly on many fronts. Are you in favor of Chat Control or not? Why?