5 ms·

I wish he would have at least nodded his head to the idea that creating censorship infrastructure today, even for the right reasons, might lead to problems tomo

I wish he would have at least nodded his head to the idea that creating censorship infrastructure today, even for the right reasons, might lead to problems tomorrow. Also I wish whatever reporter wrote the story had asked his take on that.

Sven7 13y ago
Hilarious. In which fantasy land is every outcome of a law predictable before it gets issued.
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  The land which the politicians don't want. They're not ignorant to the outcome here - it's exactly what they want and has been planned that way. This is a serious fucking power grab.
  - chalst 13y ago
    I think this is an attempt to please the party base.
    - harrytuttle 13y ago
      Which is never an excuse...
  - pyre 13y ago
    > This is a serious fucking power grab. Better explanations: * They realize it could be used for bad in the future, but they have delusions of, "bad things couldn't happen here." [ Sort of like the idea in America that, "Fascism could never happen here." ] * They are more comfortable with creating said power because they are currently in control of it, and are short-sighted enough to not realize that this won't always be the case (i.e. the 'government' will control it, but they aren't guaranteed to be a part of the government).
    - harrytuttle 13y ago
      I don't think they're that stupid. They know the endgame is censorship and control. The next step will be court sanctioned page blocks against the terrorists followed by the usual propaganda in the shite rags...
      - bulatb 13y ago
        Another possibility, avoiding Hanlon's razor: They honestly have trouble understanding how or why someone could in good conscience disagree. They don't want control or censorship in the abstract; they just want to legislate morality on this one issue because their position is so "obviously" right. Using laws like this to censor things that don't harm kids would be unthinkable, but harming kids is clearly bad, so this law neither is nor opens up the door for censorship. They don't see the slope because the motives look completely different.
        harrytuttle 13y ago
        They honestly have trouble understanding how or why someone could in good conscience disagree. That should instantly disqualify them from a career in politics!
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Hilarious. In which fantasy land is every outcome of a law predictable before it gets issued. Probably in the same fantasy land where the parent described "every outcome" of the law, instead of just a few. If you wanna employ "hilarious" and "snark" better first get what the other guy said right. I'm not even sure what your snark is supposed to be based on. For one, nobody above claimed they can predict "every outcome" of a law. Second, of course we can we can predict SOME outcomes of a law before it gets issued. Often times, we can even tell that a law is good or bad before it gets issued. Predicting the outcome of laws is what the legislation process itself is based on: in the idea that the legislators draft laws in the way that they _predict_ will bring upon a possitive outcome. They don't draft random statements and see what sticks. Now, because a lot of stuff can hamper the legislators (e.g private interests, appeal to get votes, ideology and partisan politics, fad moral opinions etc), a lot of times the public can tell a law is crap even before it gets issued.
EarthLaunch 13y ago
What do you think his intention is, to do the right thing? He knows what he's doing and there's no reason to expect him to acknowledge the "side-effects" of an evil regulation. And the reporter is not responsible for realizing this; you are.
- pyre 13y ago
  So the reporter has no responsibility to uphold journalistic ideals? Good to know.
  - EarthLaunch 13y ago
    I'm glad I was able to educate you without either of us resorting to sarcasm.
    - pyre 13y ago
      The problem with this thread is that it's entirely possible to read it as both my post and your reply are sarcastic, or they both aren't. If you really require me to be explicit, I can spell it out for you: * Each person has an individual responsibility to realize such things for their self via critical thinking. * A reporter has no legal responsibility to uphold journalistic principals. * A reporter should have an ethical responsibility to uphold journalistic principals. This, to me, is the equivalent of victim-blaming: You walk past a dark alley and see someone being assaulted. You are under no legal obligation to help the person, therefore you do not help the person. The person has no right to be angry at you because they should have been responsible for *their own* safety and shouldn't rely on anyone else. The person being assaulted is the person that is *really* at fault because they failed to protect their own personal safety.
      - EarthLaunch 13y ago
        If you wanted to have a serious conversation about journalistic integrity, you would not begin with sarcasm and continue with condescension. That's why you didn't deserve a serious reply, and still don't. The entire thread you started is also off-topic and as worthwhile as your thoughts in it.

Sven7 13y ago

Hilarious. In which fantasy land is every outcome of a law predictable before it gets issued.

harrytuttle 13y ago
The land which the politicians don't want. They're not ignorant to the outcome here - it's exactly what they want and has been planned that way. This is a serious fucking power grab.
- chalst 13y ago
  I think this is an attempt to please the party base.
  - harrytuttle 13y ago
    Which is never an excuse...
- pyre 13y ago
  > This is a serious fucking power grab. Better explanations: * They realize it could be used for bad in the future, but they have delusions of, "bad things couldn't happen here." [ Sort of like the idea in America that, "Fascism could never happen here." ] * They are more comfortable with creating said power because they are currently in control of it, and are short-sighted enough to not realize that this won't always be the case (i.e. the 'government' will control it, but they aren't guaranteed to be a part of the government).
  - harrytuttle 13y ago
    I don't think they're that stupid. They know the endgame is censorship and control. The next step will be court sanctioned page blocks against the terrorists followed by the usual propaganda in the shite rags...
    - bulatb 13y ago
      Another possibility, avoiding Hanlon's razor: They honestly have trouble understanding how or why someone could in good conscience disagree. They don't want control or censorship in the abstract; they just want to legislate morality on this one issue because their position is so "obviously" right. Using laws like this to censor things that don't harm kids would be unthinkable, but harming kids is clearly bad, so this law neither is nor opens up the door for censorship. They don't see the slope because the motives look completely different.
      - harrytuttle 13y ago
        They honestly have trouble understanding how or why someone could in good conscience disagree. That should instantly disqualify them from a career in politics!
coldtea 13y ago
>Hilarious. In which fantasy land is every outcome of a law predictable before it gets issued. Probably in the same fantasy land where the parent described "every outcome" of the law, instead of just a few. If you wanna employ "hilarious" and "snark" better first get what the other guy said right. I'm not even sure what your snark is supposed to be based on. For one, nobody above claimed they can predict "every outcome" of a law. Second, of course we can we can predict SOME outcomes of a law before it gets issued. Often times, we can even tell that a law is good or bad before it gets issued. Predicting the outcome of laws is what the legislation process itself is based on: in the idea that the legislators draft laws in the way that they _predict_ will bring upon a possitive outcome. They don't draft random statements and see what sticks. Now, because a lot of stuff can hamper the legislators (e.g private interests, appeal to get votes, ideology and partisan politics, fad moral opinions etc), a lot of times the public can tell a law is crap even before it gets issued.

EarthLaunch 13y ago

What do you think his intention is, to do the right thing? He knows what he's doing and there's no reason to expect him to acknowledge the "side-effects" of an evil regulation. And the reporter is not responsible for realizing this; you are.

pyre 13y ago
So the reporter has no responsibility to uphold journalistic ideals? Good to know.
- EarthLaunch 13y ago
  I'm glad I was able to educate you without either of us resorting to sarcasm.
  - pyre 13y ago
    The problem with this thread is that it's entirely possible to read it as both my post and your reply are sarcastic, or they both aren't. If you really require me to be explicit, I can spell it out for you: * Each person has an individual responsibility to realize such things for their self via critical thinking. * A reporter has no legal responsibility to uphold journalistic principals. * A reporter should have an ethical responsibility to uphold journalistic principals. This, to me, is the equivalent of victim-blaming: You walk past a dark alley and see someone being assaulted. You are under no legal obligation to help the person, therefore you do not help the person. The person has no right to be angry at you because they should have been responsible for *their own* safety and shouldn't rely on anyone else. The person being assaulted is the person that is *really* at fault because they failed to protect their own personal safety.
    - EarthLaunch 13y ago
      If you wanted to have a serious conversation about journalistic integrity, you would not begin with sarcasm and continue with condescension. That's why you didn't deserve a serious reply, and still don't. The entire thread you started is also off-topic and as worthwhile as your thoughts in it.