3 ms·
First, if you think that is the case, you aren't aware of persuasive arguments for surveillance. The best arguments have to do with ensuring public safety, not
by ggreer 12y ago
First, if you think that is the case, you aren't aware of persuasive arguments for surveillance. The best arguments have to do with ensuring public safety, not creating incentives to be nice.
Second, even if that were true, so what? The costs and benefits are totally different. To use an analogy: There are arguments for organ donation that also apply to organ theft. "One person's organs can be used to save a dozen lives." That does not mean organ theft should be allowed or that organ donation should be prevented.
- jules 12y agoI wasn't referring to the "it encourages people to be nicer" (which is obviously a ridiculous argument too) but to the "nothing to hide" argument: > My main objection to the "right to be forgotten" is that censorship of non-defamatory information helps unsavory people more than nicer ones. You did have a good argument though: > And there's the problem inherent in all censorship: Who do you trust to determine what you're allowed to read or say?