I disagree.
The definition of "bad actor" constantly changes. Something you do legally today can and will become illegal in the future, and if you don't change your ways, you will be a bad actor, too.
The people pushing for this under the guise of protecting children are the same people who went on The Island, or at least protect those who did. They never cared about children's safety.
The biggest criminals of all are the very same people pushing for these laws, this surveillance, this control. Don't be fooled.
Sure, the definition changes but whoever are the bad actors now create the desire to deal with them, which creates a motive or excuse to create or change systems for that. No matter how fair or unfair the treatment is, if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed.
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say in this comment, but if by:
>if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed
You mean some kind of resistance against tyrannical policies, then those "other means", if I understand what you're saying, are often illegal. True resistance that causes true societal change isn't parading the streets with signs or talking to your local representative. It's sabotage, vandalism, and in extreme cases, violence. True activism. The surveillance state's main goal is disrupting such initiatives before they can even get off the ground.
>It's a metaphor for a process. Calling people names like "maxxers" is unhelpful and probably against the rules here.
Yeah we don't mean frogs, that's obvious. Calling people maxxers being offensive is surprising. Maybe you should consider offended for being called cancer instead?
The truth is not always somewhere in the middle. If one group wants to serve water and another wants to serve cyanide, the right answer is not to mix the two, it's to serve water and to end the careers of the people who wanted to serve cyanide.
I disagree. The definition of "bad actor" constantly changes. Something you do legally today can and will become illegal in the future, and if you don't change your ways, you will be a bad actor, too.
The people pushing for this under the guise of protecting children are the same people who went on The Island, or at least protect those who did. They never cared about children's safety.
The biggest criminals of all are the very same people pushing for these laws, this surveillance, this control. Don't be fooled.
Sure, the definition changes but whoever are the bad actors now create the desire to deal with them, which creates a motive or excuse to create or change systems for that. No matter how fair or unfair the treatment is, if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed.
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say in this comment, but if by: >if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed
You mean some kind of resistance against tyrannical policies, then those "other means", if I understand what you're saying, are often illegal. True resistance that causes true societal change isn't parading the streets with signs or talking to your local representative. It's sabotage, vandalism, and in extreme cases, violence. True activism. The surveillance state's main goal is disrupting such initiatives before they can even get off the ground.
It's a metaphor for a process. Calling people names like "maxxers" is unhelpful and probably against the rules here.
>It's a metaphor for a process. Calling people names like "maxxers" is unhelpful and probably against the rules here.
Yeah we don't mean frogs, that's obvious. Calling people maxxers being offensive is surprising. Maybe you should consider offended for being called cancer instead?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
The truth is not always somewhere in the middle. If one group wants to serve water and another wants to serve cyanide, the right answer is not to mix the two, it's to serve water and to end the careers of the people who wanted to serve cyanide.
I am not arguing for a middle ground, I argue for addressing the issues directly instead of being maximalist in any way.