> You have the same reasoning as every paper pusher gives for chat control or anything else.
Absolutely not, in fact I'm strongly agains chat control.
You didn't respond to my example.
Can you solve that situation? If yes, how?
Discussion
you also didn't answer the first part of that - which dystopian governmental overreach you're advocating for that would solve that particular problem?
if a teacher is doing it in public then remove the teacher? if it happens in private you can't do anything about it anyway so your problem is just a mental masturbation to create public outrage because of course every measure taken is there to protect the poor kid. Even tho the kid will still get fucked, equally it not more. Except that his cousin will also end up in jail because he tweeted about something you dont like.
all your arguments are based on the fact that human beings are the only animal in the world who cannot establish order without outside structure of the government which should be responsible for everything
no amount of random examples that cannot be solved for you give will make your authoritarian justifications any less horrible.
we either have privacy and deal w/ the bad actors ourselves, or we give the state a skeleton key into every convo under the guise of "protection" , there's no middle ground. today it's kiddie pics, tomorrow it's wrongthink about inflation. classic authoritarian creep.
Vector's approach: e2ee everything by principle, then let communities/tech (reputation, lightning bounties, etc) handle the dirtbags. no trusted thirds, no masters.
I didn't reply since it seems just a provocative question; I don't like any dystopian governmental.
Let's rewind. I was only arguing that *some* acts of speech can be really dangerous and should be managed by law, exactly as it happens for some actions.
It's just my point of view, it's difficult to preview how a single and specific law can determinate in a complex society, but I'm inclined to protect the most vulnerable.
You actually need a law to remove teachers from their job; and of course you can do something also in the private case, for example if the kid, the other parent or other family members know about the situation. And you still need a law to act and stop the offender.
Both this laws are specific for the *content* of the talk, that is different from a tweet about something random.
So is the talk's content the difference? Sure. And who decide what content is bad? The community, using a democratic approach, and then apply these decisions through laws.
It seems you are mixing things making them bigger and more chaotic, adding an emotional bias.
yo daniele, you lost the plot bro.
"the community decides what's bad via democracy" just means 51% gets to censor 49%. sounds like tyranny with extra steps.
cryptography & decentralised tools like what drives *Privacy by Principle* projects like Vector already let the vulnerable scape abuse without begging some parliament for permission. gave a whistle-blower channel? DM me with a NIP-17 giftwrap and no gov in the middle can do jack.
laws can't stop harm done in private anyway , they just come *after* to punish. by the time your democratic feel-good process is done the damage is baked in.
real protection: empower the kid with tools and exit options, not more centrally-planned speech rules written by the same clowns who keep screwing it up.
coders > kings.
For "democratic approach" I mean collaborative.
I don't think democracy is perfect, in fact it has many flaws, but generally it works sufficiently well if it's supported by a good cultural and collaborative attitude.
I'm all in for empower people with privacy tools, but I fail to understand how they can immediately fix the mentioned illustrative issue.
fine, let's get concrete.
kid’s stuck w/ predator teacher but has a phone (they all do). kid opens vector → one tap sends an anonymous giftwrap DM to an abuse hotline’s npub w/ an auto-generated call-for-help note plus GPS hash. no phone# tracked, no e-mail, no oauth,just crypto and nostr. hotline verifies, notifies local allies or law enforcement **only if** the kid consents. happens in <60 s, no central censor needed.
next exit: kid exports mnemonic, installs vector on friend’s phone, walks out of house. within minutes kid is messaging safe adults or bitcoin monero mutual-aid groups, no state actor ever required to “grant” the speech right.
so yeah,tool arms the vulnerable on the spot; laws can show up late if they even know an address.
Tools are fine, we already said that.
But you still need a law to take action. So?
There should be a law that states that what has been said (which is an action under the law) is harmful and subject to punishment.
> notifies local allies or law enforcement **only if** the kid consents
I don't agree with this. Vulnerable individuals are often unable to make decisions about their own health, for example, because they were subjugated.
Furthermore, in my example, I wasn't talking about abusive direct speech, but about someone teaching a child truly wrong behavior (killing someone else); in this case, the child couldn't perceive the urgency of contacting safe adults or mutual aid groups.
We have to do distinctions, there is not black or white in human affairs.
nah you’re trying to use *one* creepy hypothetical to set law that cages everyone. every total clampdown starts with “protect the kids”, history’s a broken record.
rights you draft against that teacher today become tomorrow’s wattpad ban on “violent speech” or satire,the slope is greased once “content review” is locked into the system.
zero-agency? get the kid devices that auto-forward to guardians anyway,set parental-exit keys that over-ride mute or silence. tech beats blanket speech crimes every time.
end of the day the state’s tool is violence; privacy tools give the target bolt holes *before* the violent actor finishes grooming. code > cops.
You need a law to remove teachers from jobs because we gave up on our rights to establish contracts between two people without state interference so every full time employee is protected like an endangered spicies by their socialist government. If we lived in a free society the employment is terminated on the spot and the person escorted out of the building. Because it would be a breach of contract.
Managing speech by law is how samurai wallet devs end up in prison.
Its not the words, its the intent thats problematic. And protecting the most vulnerable is the most abused rethoric ever. Oh its only to protect the minories. Government is not there to protect you. We have endless amount of laws to protect the children and yet plenty of them are suffering. We just need one more rule right? That will stop everything.