Re: Bonkers
It is a fail and intended to fail. When it does, we will hear a fake, media clamour for deanonymised internet, a requirement to be identified online. Apple, Google, x, banks, etc are preparing to be id authenticators.
9 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Sep 2022
If anyone remembers the climategate dramatics, part of the problem is that historical data was "corrected" and 'anomalies' were normalised. This is to say, the historical record is not what it was, and that the apparent baseline data that this and other models use already has some modern assumptions baked in.
How do you know that this isn't the case already? Ie that this person works of Russian secret services?
In fact, how do we know that it's not US agencies pretending to be Russians?
How do we know that any parts of this story are real? The first casualty of war is the truth, as they say.
Damn those terrorists and child abusers... If it wasn't for them, we would still have some semblance of privacy!
But what other options are there than to unmask everyone, and be able to track and trace everyone's thoughts at all times?
Thank goodness for our military and police that are able to direct their hefty budgets onto the people they are protecting to uncover the criminal thinking. Still, they aren't having that much success in making arrests are they? I'm starting to think that the "protection" we receive might not be for our own good....
Who are the terrorists and child abusers again?!
I hate that right and wrong are decided in capricious corporate policy, when we are meant to have the law to decide these things. It allows groupthink (which can get it wrong!) or whoever controls the purse strings, to decide who can us what regardless of whether a crime has or has not been committed!
I might not like so-and-so, for any number of reasons, but if an individual or company is not causing harm as per the constraints of the law, companies should do business with whomever. They should be forced to, in fact. Without a crime and legal constraints business transactions should not be questioned as 'hate speech'. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and all that.
If you move from law to the court of public opinion to judge these things, you then move into total subjectivity. This will not work. 'Hate' won't disappear, understandings will not magically occur. If the idea is that power needs to be tyrannical in deplatforming hate, and it should torment alternative opinions, the only outcome will be great divisiveness, hate and misunderstandings - which, of course, is what we have seen in recent years.