Some of these people are certainly not saying kind things, and are saying things that I object to. That being said, objectionable speech is the only kind of speech that needs robust legal protection. A democratic society cannot endure under a regime that can, at the discretion of any given officer, decide you have said something objectionable and are now subject to the law.
The UK already arrests more than 1,000 a month people for online "hate speech". Higher than the official numbers for China, whatever those are worth. They'll probably reach the unofficial, real number soon enough.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
Another step towards the Redditification of hackernews. This is the exact opposite kind of functionality pages like HN need, we need ways to get people to engage with others' ideas more substantively rather than literally put someone on the "bad guy I won't talk to list".
Nation-states sponsored hackers make up a huge amount of known targeted intrusion groups. This is not some random company tilting at windmills, these are real threats that hit American and American-aligned companies daily.
>It's easy to see this reflected in nature in the real world. All animals and life seem to be aware and accommodating of each other, but humans are cut out from that communication.
This just seems like noble savaging birds and rabbits and deer. None of these creatures have any communication with each other, and while they may be more aware of each other's presence than a 'go hiking every once in a while' person, someone who actually spends a good amount of time in the woods, such as a hunter or birdwatcher, probably has a pretty good sense of them. The Disco Elysium quote just reads like fairly common environmentalist misanthropy, which I suppose isn't surprising considering the creators.
In education, the effects of striving for equity in the US have amounted to a ridiculous level of Harrison Bergeroning within the public school system, which is partially responsible for the collapse in trust in schools.
>Democracy" in these discussions increasingly just means the 21st-century bureaucratic status quo.
It is for this reason that so many young people, left and right, are latching onto non or even anti-democratic political ideologies. The systems themselves have become the highest good as opposed to what they were originally designed for. Due process no longer means a swift and fair trial, it means endless shifting paperwork and appeals that make our judiciary collapse on itself. Building anything is no longer about the funds and means to build it but about the willpower to trudge through 5+ layers of approval from councils and faceless agencies. All the while, elite overproduction has created a whole class of "expert" who cannot understand the world 3 inches from their face but are supposed to be trusted at all times to make the best decision on our behalf.
The idea that the average person in America commits even one felony a day is so ridiculous it falls flat on its face after being spoken. How can you even say something like that without feeling embarrassed for believing it?
The totalizing idea that your beliefs and values get to be the ones guiding the moderation of every single conversation happening anywhere on the internet (and therefore, the world) is probably more authoritarian than 80% of the ideas informing people who post on /pol/.
The Mandiant report said that some Snowflake customers declined to use MFA AND had passwords in place for 4+ years[1]. Maybe Snowflake should have pushed for MFA harder but at the end of the day, this is AT&T's fault.
One could hope that this is a brick in the path towards a solid, comprehensive privacy law at the national level. Especially given bipartisan criticism of "home grown" spying platforms such as Facebook and Google, it certainly doesn't seem impossible (just unlikely).
Some of these people are certainly not saying kind things, and are saying things that I object to. That being said, objectionable speech is the only kind of speech that needs robust legal protection. A democratic society cannot endure under a regime that can, at the discretion of any given officer, decide you have said something objectionable and are now subject to the law.