3 ms·
I agree fundamentally and ideologically but we are past that point. The toothpaste is already out of the tube as they say. There will be restrictions so all I
by Bender 5mo ago
I agree fundamentally and ideologically but we are past that point. The toothpaste is already out of the tube as they say. There will be restrictions so all I can do is suggest more sensible restrictions that keep the control on the client side and do not share data. Any data shared can and will be abused, leaked, sold, stolen without consequence.
- yetta 5mo agoNo we aren't. Also you can put toothpaste in tubes or it wouldn't be in there. Hope that helps!
- AdrianB1 5mo agoI heard that lie about "sensible restrictions" so many times, now I am waiting for "sensible violence", "sensible beating to death" and so on. It is a false argument that "there will be restrictions so all I can do is suggest more sensible restrictions", what you can do is recognize that "no restrictions is an option". It is like negotiating with a terrorist that wants to kill you and this is his starting position and then he wants to agree on some compromise, like seriously beating you. There is no negotiation.
- Bender 5mo agoNo harm in pushing for no restrictions at all. I support this idea.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago> now I am waiting for "sensible violence" That exists and is called "self defense", no?
- shevy-java 5mo agoWe are not past the point at all. Any democracy can ultimately decide on laws and regulation. Why would you wish to insinuate otherwise here? California could easily decide to not implement such laws, for instance. That data leaks out is always a given. So, gather less data. Ideally none. But this is not a discussion about data. This is a discussion as to what state actors think they are allowed to do. It is an attack on private life of people. See the combined strike against VPNs.
- Bender 5mo agoWe are not past the point at all. I can only hope you are correct.
- hunterpayne 5mo agoPlease remember that there are CA state policies that the voters voted to overturn (in a referendum) and the current CA state government refuses to do so. California voters decided. The California government un-democratically decided to ignore the voters against their own laws they themselves passed. PS I'm referring to bail reform here. PPS Just trying to frame what the CA government thinks its allowed to do which is apparently anything it wants.
- hansvm 5mo ago> toothpaste out of the tube Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2521/ https://xkcd.com/2521/
- saghm 5mo agoHow and when did we decide that we were past that point? I don't remember being consulted