Replying to Avatar ElectronicsQuestions

You have the answer in your own comment. If trying to add friction lands you in jail, of course few will do it.

In many cases it's not a complicit attitude, but seeing that the proposed tech isn't viable.

We definitely need privacy tech, desperately, but we need well thought-through things that either can't be banned, or that would be essentially foolproof even if banned, so that there is an absolutely minuscule risk of jail by developing, implementing, and especially using it.

It's a huge ask, but it is what we need. Anything less isn't just useless, but counterproductive, as it allows the state to state examples, discouraging even more people from trying.
Avatar
Jordan 1y ago 💬 1

I hear you and I agree but I meant adding friction by actually having an orientation and attitude against these things rather than tacitly supporting it. I was more thinking about the folks who would relish someone “taxing the rich” etc

Because if people’s attitude was changed and saw someone go to jail for something silly like this perhaps we would have a stronger reaction towards it instead of the apathy we see now.

Anyway thanks for the response

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
ElectronicsQuestions 1y ago

Mainstream media and social media algorithms are the problems. They brainwash people to think the silly things aren't silly at all, and that government "solutions" work well. See "money laundering" for example, that has put a huge surveillance and financial censorship system in place, targeting transactions in the single dollar to hundreds of thousands of dollars range, while the multi-billions are laundered without problem, and the governments are involved in it...