3 comments

  • Waterluvian 24 minutes ago
    It feels like there’s this weird layer to domestic and international politics where you do a lot of signalling to one audience while simultaneously winking at other audiences that you’re not actually serious. (I can never tell who is getting winked at…)

    I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. The Ned Stark character that is righteous and right and quickly meets the headman’s axe of the game theory and brinksmanship of everyone else.

    • Iolaum 11 minutes ago
      While I agree this is the case, I think this is a consequence of low education for the general public and low quality of the public discourse. If the quality of those two goes up, then WYSIWYG politics will emerge as a preferred choice.

      I only wish I knew of possible ways for us to get there :(

  • alephnerd 39 minutes ago
    So has Australia, the EU, and the UK [0].

    That said, being a signatory has limited impact as long as it isn't ratified.

    [0] - https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...

  • failbuffer 28 minutes ago
    When are we going to see substantive legislation advancing digital rights instead of chipping away at them?

    For the US, we need a new bill of rights, a bill of digital rights that constitutionally protects right of repair, right to root our own devices, right to be free from dragnet surveillance, right to general purpose computing, and the right to access speech without government-mandated age or identity checks.

    With all the libertarian millionaires and billionaires swirling around silicon valley and the venture capital space, why can't we make that happen?

    • Cider9986 22 minutes ago
      Thomas Massie introduced the best privacy bill I have seen. I know nothing about political strategy but i would think a democrat would have been a better cosponsor. Will it even get voted on if the house speaker doesn't want it?

      https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/

      >Warrant required Government must go before a judge to access your metadata, location, or financial records — just like searching your home.

      >No Data Shopping Agencies can no longer simply purchase data from brokers to bypass the warrant process.

      >Face recognition banned Warrantless facial recognition and AI biometric surveillance in public spaces is prohibited.

      >You Can Sue Private right of action means if the government violates your rights, you have legal recourse.

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/8470...

    • brandon272 15 minutes ago
      The effort to erode privacy is so much greater than the effort to preserve it. Governments around the world are like a dog with a bone when it comes to increasing surveillance.

      An apathetic and ill informed public doesn’t help matters.

    • jagged-chisel 22 minutes ago
      > … why can't we make that happen?

      Greed. More money to provide the tools of oppression via government contracts.

    • olyjohn 4 minutes ago
      [delayed]
    • mcsniff 23 minutes ago
      Because libertarians generally want fewer laws, not more.
      • jambalaya8 0 minutes ago
        that doesn't mean they don't want some of the 'right laws'. otherwise they would be anarchists and communists not libertarians.
      • dexterdog 16 minutes ago
        And there are far too few of them elected to have any real impact.
    • watwut 7 minutes ago
      > With all the libertarian millionaires and billionaires swirling around silicon valley

      Those are pro-surveillance, pro-repair-prevention, pro-fascism.

      Libertarianism is about your freedom to restrict others, if you are rich and powerful.

      • HPsquared 0 minutes ago
        Freedom to put whatever you want in the EULA.