I wonder if renowned professors and academics are on average more ethical or the same as then.
You hear things like OP and think “Yeah there is a good reason why we stopped treating professors as authorities to consult on anything”. Just how many people must have known and just silently accepted this atrocity.
Speech has been turned into a commodity, and thus easily controlled.
Signal requires to use phone number, which in many countries is legally required to be tied to your personal identity. Like the SMS provider must have a copy of your id card. You’re basically naked to the CIA when using Signal. Even if not like in the US they presumably mass collect SIM and location correlations for ID. For the life of me I do not understand how anyone can promote that shit.
So the “honeypot” of Signal is that the mainstream promotes it as IF it was a privacy focused app when it’s very glaringly obviously is not. So the effect is that it prevents market space and attention for other apps actually focused on privacy without requiring ID to sign up. It’s a bit like introducing sterile insects to prevent the spread of unwanted pests (= actually secure communication).
They are perfect for torrenting though. The kind of activity 3 letter agencies don’t want their spying to be disturbed for.
Who is the third from the left?
PS: Sorry that was politically incorrect, let me rephrase my question: Who is the second from the far right?
Thanks, yeah seems it was a mistake. The CEO / founder is I believe a libertarian, but at least he believes in something, like privacy.
Is there an article about this?
Fascism is capitalism in decay. The neoliberals in the democratic establishment and their presidential failures share at least 50% of the blame. But it’s the same all over the west, Europe is not that far behind.
A virus that makes everyone ultra obedient? Could be an interesting Zombie movie.
They wrong him like one of those alt-right philosophy bros, as if they could somehow make him make sense.
<sad modem noises>
Well I agree that we’re seeing some kneejerk reactions to things, and unwillingness to engage or argue with perceived enemies. Like I’m so done talking politely with fascists but it swings both ways. Like that same trained behavior (because it is exhausting and painful) and good vs evil thinking has been redirected e.g. against anyone defending Russia or China or Iran. But strangely the same thing failed in trying to curtail criticism against Palestine.
But I think part of it is BECAUSE there is no legal recourse against inciting hatred against ethnicity or genders. The US and the US owned social media are very extreme and have totally changed how people talk. Before we didn’t have people just constantly dogwhistling about race etc. So because there is no defense the only thing left is being offended. There is no moderation. We are left with impotent rage.
And of course the lawsuit in OP weaponizes that “freedom of speech” extremism. Tolerance is being sold as intolerance against the intolerant.
So the argument against the lawsuit in the video was that speech should be completely free and everyone just has to bear with the insults. That logically means that hate speech also has to be accepted, which is incorrect because that leads to intolerance and fascism. That is why the video is incorrect, because hate speech cannot be tolerated.
No the lawsuit should have no standing at all. There should be no basis on being allowed to sue for being “religiously offended”. But one should be allowed to sue because hate speech like someone is inciting hatred against an ethnic group or gender or other identity.
My point is that saying “sticks and stones bla bla but words can never hurt me lalala” like the lady in the video - that’s wrong because words do turn into stones. And her argument would shut both hypothetical lawsuits down.
Liberal AntiFa successfully sued the KKK out of existence, but it took a lot of effort because the US has no hate speech laws.
And local and under your control. As a “second brain” that isn’t sentient but intelligent to assist you AI has great potential. In a few years we’ll probably have the models and new hardware to run good enough models locally on cheap enough hardware.
But by then they’ll have drummed enough support for “muh copyright” to buy legislation for AI licensing and make all AI models have to pay a license fee to… “someone”. Like that poor writer who had his work illegally read by an AI. So then no open source models can exist and they have the monopoly. Big win for the little guy lol.
At least China is pushing to expand production capacity.
I think that’s the wrong and dangerous argument. It’s a typical liberal talking point… for example, allowing people to constantly spew lies and inciting people to racial hatred works in creating and recruiting more racists. Or misogynists. We’ve seen it over and over again. If you tolerate intolerance you soon find your tolerance vanishing.
THAT should be what the argument should be about. Their religion of hate is intolerance, and shouldn’t be tolerated, or in this case, not have any standing to sue for offending and injuring your “human dignity”. There is no conflict there.
But we need to go even further than that to prevent those with the most amount of money and power to deform the reality we are able to perceive. All humans should have a fundamental “right to reality”. Not being locked up in a simulation, and not presented by news or social media that shows an objectively wrong reality, or where you can’t perceive what is science and what is woo. Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to outright lie and face severe consequences for such behavior.
The principle behind freedom of speech is that democracy needs people to be able to understand the world they live in without the state or state-like entities like plutocrats being able to prevent important information and truth to be published. This has been completely perverted and speech has become a commodity, easily controlled. “They” control the agenda and call it free speech. Liberals need to understand that no principle can be pushed to the extreme. You have to look at the consequences and history. We know hate speech causes more fascists, we know lies cause subversion and destruction of democracy.
So in my country it’s pretty “limited” because of that. You’re allowed to use a dash-cam as long as it doesn’t permanently record. ONLY if there is a crash or a crime you may press the “record and keep the last X minutes” button. I mean that is how most dash-cams function anyway. And you can’t publicly share it without consent of people you filmed or blur their faces and tags. So a legal framework already exists that protects citizens privacy while still allowing to collect video evidence.
Hmm… of course next step would need to be to have dashcams that have a sensors that encrypt and authenticate the video using a random key, to have a higher confidence that you haven’t generated AI footage showing the other person at fault.
Just FYI: It’s not the network provide we have to worry about in my country. That is specific to the USA I believe.
Here they have “headhunters” that make a contract with a rights holder, torrent a file, write down the IP of someone who uploads a video to them, then legally request the name to the IP and send an invoice for about $2000. No three warnings or anything. And they are very good at sending legal officials to impound any of your valuable stuff in case you don’t pay.
Even other “illegal” activity like calling Israel an apartheid regime or supporting palestine or insulting your head of state might get you flagged by a three letter agency, but they won’t use official legal channels. There is a protection of the herd with VPN.