No sir, it does not show how ridiculous it is to expect the right to be forgotten to do a thing. That's a technological problem -- it has absolutely nothing to do with why or how her video was shared in the first place. If you want to argue whether or not we have the means to solve the problem of sharing information and redacting it, then I'm all for it. But don't argue that it's a "ridiculous expectation" and certainly don't argue that it has anything to do with her decisions.
I think it's reasonably certain that she did NOT understand the consequences. You do understand what I said about this being a new phenomenon, right? People don't naturally think "if I share this with a small group of people, it's liable to be shared by the world." Likewise, it's not judicious to suppose she "deserves" worldwide condemnation. There are many, many cases we are seeing where people are getting into similar situations. This ought to tell you that online shaming is a problem, and it's not going to stop by us throwing our hands up and saying "eh, it's her fault." Because really, it's not her fault: it's a new situation created by technology that humans weren't equipped to deal with.
I don't think you understand how social situation work. Your "suspicion" is ridiculous, and it deflates nothing but your own weak attempts to justify your draconian views on individuals who desire some level of protection from worldwide shame.
Nice conclusion there, McCoy. Except there wasn't a "case". There was no trial, and there was no impartiality. It was a lambasting by the court of public opinion, an audience which happened to be the world. Sharing a sex video should not result in worldwide mockery and a subsequent suicide. If you don't see how this is problematic, then you're part of the same squad of repugnant trolls who cause these sorts of issues, sir.
I agree completely with you.
But you have to keep in mind that many of these people are social awkward geeks who haven't the nerve to make a sex video if they wanted to. They can't be expected to understand or have compassion for anyone that has made such a mistake.
A "free pass"!? They started putting her words on t-shirts, dude. For one mistake. For all the people screaming about accountability in her actions, I'd like to see you have your biggest mistakes become an object of mockery for everyone in the world.
Despite the apparent acquiescence of neck-beards on Slashdot, having the ability to share personal information without sharing it with the entire world is something greatly desired by actual human beings. We're seeing a new phenomenon relative to the entirely of human existence -- it's not natural for people to adjust to. People want to share personal information with other human beings without sharing it with the rest of the world. Just because you send a sex video to a few friends (as ill-advised as that might sound), it does NOT mean you should face world-wide mockery by basement-dwellers.
So yes, this is a big problem. Brushing it off as "stupidity" is callous and ignorant.
You know those scenes in movies where the assassin is holding a pillow over an informants face, and the informant is invariably lashes out for something -- ANYTHING -- to grasp onto for the hope of just one gasp of air?
Democracy is a rule of majority... a Republic is a rule of law
A democracy is a tyranny of majority.
This trite belief commonly taught in high-school is simply nonsensical. A "republic" and a "democracy" are not mutually exclusive. One could very well have a representational democracy with a republic, and one could very well have a non-representional, totalitarian republic (which one might argue could be said of Plato's Republic).
Our system of government is often described as a "representational democracy" currently, but this is not even true. An ideal representational democracy would represent all citizens, but ours represents owners. And this is by design, because in the nascent stages of our development, the "owners" meant landowners, and they were viewed as the responsible set of men who would rule justly, a philosophy supported by the likes of John Jay ("Those who own the country ought to govern it") and Madison ("The purpose of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority"). Of course, it's not only landowners who can vote now, but the opinions of the irrelevant masses are carefully cultivated and weaned to an irrelevant decision between two largely homogenized candidates by today's "owners" (those who control vast capital).
So before jumping on the pure democracy train, I'd say let's work on getting a representational democracy that actually represents people, not capital.
You are correct that corporations are constructs of the state. I might have used a more general example by saying "owners of vast property", which does not require the "state" in every case, but in most modern contexts, it in fact does. James Madison once commented that the purpose of a government was to "protect the minority of the opulent from the majority". That's an extremely strong statement about the nature of a state from the founder of what's regarded as the prototypical modern republic: it exists primarily to protect property rights. Of course, one does not need a state to protect property rights, and a state not exist to protect property rights, but this is almost entirely how property and the state are related in modern governments today. And this presents a stark oversight in how modern "libertarians" think. They overwhelmingly view the state as an agent that exists to VIOLATE the rights of property owners, and this is ridiculous. That could conceivably be true, but it contradicts the reality of modern governance, because as you pointed out, corporations are an excellent example of the state sanctioning and protecting property owners.
The nature of the state as a protector of property rights was the very thing that brought about socialism, communism, and anarchism, all of which to varying degrees were in deep opposition to the existence of a state. I suspect the reason many here in America do not understand this is because of the deep and unabbating propaganda of property owners, most of which imagine the U.S.S.R. as a "communist state" (an oxymoronic statement), which serves as a lesson that communities need to be brought under the strict discipline of property owners, else we get what’s called “communism” in the form of the U.S.S.R. This was a tactic that was certainly used during the struggle for labor rights in the beginning of the 1900’s, all the way through the 1960’s and is still used today. I also suspect that the core beliefs held by libertarians in the tradition sense (which really meant “anarchism” — as in the political theory) would generally be accepted by the public if they had any understand of these things. Liberty means freedom from state coercion, and it also means freedom from the coercion of private power. Power is not agnostic to freedom: it is in deep opposition to it.
In particular in the United States, there is a very real and documented problem of wealth distribution. This isn't about "jealousy", it's about people being gradually displaced from the ability to share in the vast resources that are available. And since the 1970's the problem has been getting worse. As all traditional libertarians realize, this causes a loss of liberty, because as power and wealth become concentrated, the important choices are in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals.
I think you, like most Americans, are confused about what "liberty" means. For most Americans, "liberty" and "freedom" means "absence of government control", but it does not take into account (like the historical European meaning of libertarian) the control of private forms of power, such as economic control by a corporation. I think this would attribute your inclusion of "socialism" as a "statist" believe, although in fact socialism has no real attachment to a state.
No. Again, the distinction between the colloquial meaning of "anarchy" needs to be juxtaposed with the historical, political, and relevant theory of anarchy. In a colloquial (and quite modern) sense, "anarchy" does mean, roughly, "chaos", but that meaning is entirely artificial in the sense that it ignores the entire historical theory and context of political anarchy. You are conflating the two.
Political anarchy, however, varies widely in it's forms, and therefore can have an admittedly nebulous definition. The core principle, however, might be summed up as this: individuals are inherently moral, power is inherently corrupt and immoral, and one needs to resolve this conflict in order to achieve both individual freedom and a moral society. The various ways this conflict is addressed is the bases of the great variety of forms of anarchy. It does NOT mean "there are no rules", and it does NOT mean "social chaos". In almost every conception, an anarchist society has a great amount of order.
For more on the varied forms of anarchism and history, I highly recommend the writings of George Woodcock.
It sounds like you aren't aware of the distinction between "anarchy" the political theory and "anarchy' in a colloquial sense. This distinction is critical to understand why those "posturing delusionals" you refer to are actually not delusional.
Secondly, we already have murder, theft, and rape, and plenty of it is sanctioned by state and private power. Anarchists recognize immoral behavior by state, private, and individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because everyone is has a mastery of informational security and best practices. Only the "morons" do not.
Yes. This is a universal problem not limited to shaming of a sex tape.
No sir, it does not show how ridiculous it is to expect the right to be forgotten to do a thing. That's a technological problem -- it has absolutely nothing to do with why or how her video was shared in the first place. If you want to argue whether or not we have the means to solve the problem of sharing information and redacting it, then I'm all for it. But don't argue that it's a "ridiculous expectation" and certainly don't argue that it has anything to do with her decisions.
I think it's reasonably certain that she did NOT understand the consequences. You do understand what I said about this being a new phenomenon, right? People don't naturally think "if I share this with a small group of people, it's liable to be shared by the world." Likewise, it's not judicious to suppose she "deserves" worldwide condemnation. There are many, many cases we are seeing where people are getting into similar situations. This ought to tell you that online shaming is a problem, and it's not going to stop by us throwing our hands up and saying "eh, it's her fault." Because really, it's not her fault: it's a new situation created by technology that humans weren't equipped to deal with.
I don't think you understand how social situation work. Your "suspicion" is ridiculous, and it deflates nothing but your own weak attempts to justify your draconian views on individuals who desire some level of protection from worldwide shame.
Nice conclusion there, McCoy. Except there wasn't a "case". There was no trial, and there was no impartiality. It was a lambasting by the court of public opinion, an audience which happened to be the world. Sharing a sex video should not result in worldwide mockery and a subsequent suicide. If you don't see how this is problematic, then you're part of the same squad of repugnant trolls who cause these sorts of issues, sir.
I agree completely with you. But you have to keep in mind that many of these people are social awkward geeks who haven't the nerve to make a sex video if they wanted to. They can't be expected to understand or have compassion for anyone that has made such a mistake.
A "free pass"!? They started putting her words on t-shirts, dude. For one mistake. For all the people screaming about accountability in her actions, I'd like to see you have your biggest mistakes become an object of mockery for everyone in the world.
Despite the apparent acquiescence of neck-beards on Slashdot, having the ability to share personal information without sharing it with the entire world is something greatly desired by actual human beings. We're seeing a new phenomenon relative to the entirely of human existence -- it's not natural for people to adjust to. People want to share personal information with other human beings without sharing it with the rest of the world. Just because you send a sex video to a few friends (as ill-advised as that might sound), it does NOT mean you should face world-wide mockery by basement-dwellers. So yes, this is a big problem. Brushing it off as "stupidity" is callous and ignorant.
I agree with everything you said. Along with Feynman videos, he wrote several great autobiographical accounts of his life that are spectacular reads.
- Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder - What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry by John Markoff
Damn. That escalated quickly.
You know those scenes in movies where the assassin is holding a pillow over an informants face, and the informant is invariably lashes out for something -- ANYTHING -- to grasp onto for the hope of just one gasp of air?
"do not go gently into that goodnight" - Dylan Thomas
... we have an electoral college.
Democracy is a rule of majority... a Republic is a rule of law
A democracy is a tyranny of majority.
This trite belief commonly taught in high-school is simply nonsensical. A "republic" and a "democracy" are not mutually exclusive. One could very well have a representational democracy with a republic, and one could very well have a non-representional, totalitarian republic (which one might argue could be said of Plato's Republic).
Our system of government is often described as a "representational democracy" currently, but this is not even true. An ideal representational democracy would represent all citizens, but ours represents owners. And this is by design, because in the nascent stages of our development, the "owners" meant landowners, and they were viewed as the responsible set of men who would rule justly, a philosophy supported by the likes of John Jay ("Those who own the country ought to govern it") and Madison ("The purpose of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority"). Of course, it's not only landowners who can vote now, but the opinions of the irrelevant masses are carefully cultivated and weaned to an irrelevant decision between two largely homogenized candidates by today's "owners" (those who control vast capital).
So before jumping on the pure democracy train, I'd say let's work on getting a representational democracy that actually represents people, not capital.
You are correct that corporations are constructs of the state. I might have used a more general example by saying "owners of vast property", which does not require the "state" in every case, but in most modern contexts, it in fact does. James Madison once commented that the purpose of a government was to "protect the minority of the opulent from the majority". That's an extremely strong statement about the nature of a state from the founder of what's regarded as the prototypical modern republic: it exists primarily to protect property rights. Of course, one does not need a state to protect property rights, and a state not exist to protect property rights, but this is almost entirely how property and the state are related in modern governments today. And this presents a stark oversight in how modern "libertarians" think. They overwhelmingly view the state as an agent that exists to VIOLATE the rights of property owners, and this is ridiculous. That could conceivably be true, but it contradicts the reality of modern governance, because as you pointed out, corporations are an excellent example of the state sanctioning and protecting property owners. The nature of the state as a protector of property rights was the very thing that brought about socialism, communism, and anarchism, all of which to varying degrees were in deep opposition to the existence of a state. I suspect the reason many here in America do not understand this is because of the deep and unabbating propaganda of property owners, most of which imagine the U.S.S.R. as a "communist state" (an oxymoronic statement), which serves as a lesson that communities need to be brought under the strict discipline of property owners, else we get what’s called “communism” in the form of the U.S.S.R. This was a tactic that was certainly used during the struggle for labor rights in the beginning of the 1900’s, all the way through the 1960’s and is still used today. I also suspect that the core beliefs held by libertarians in the tradition sense (which really meant “anarchism” — as in the political theory) would generally be accepted by the public if they had any understand of these things. Liberty means freedom from state coercion, and it also means freedom from the coercion of private power. Power is not agnostic to freedom: it is in deep opposition to it. In particular in the United States, there is a very real and documented problem of wealth distribution. This isn't about "jealousy", it's about people being gradually displaced from the ability to share in the vast resources that are available. And since the 1970's the problem has been getting worse. As all traditional libertarians realize, this causes a loss of liberty, because as power and wealth become concentrated, the important choices are in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals.
I think you, like most Americans, are confused about what "liberty" means. For most Americans, "liberty" and "freedom" means "absence of government control", but it does not take into account (like the historical European meaning of libertarian) the control of private forms of power, such as economic control by a corporation. I think this would attribute your inclusion of "socialism" as a "statist" believe, although in fact socialism has no real attachment to a state.
No. Again, the distinction between the colloquial meaning of "anarchy" needs to be juxtaposed with the historical, political, and relevant theory of anarchy. In a colloquial (and quite modern) sense, "anarchy" does mean, roughly, "chaos", but that meaning is entirely artificial in the sense that it ignores the entire historical theory and context of political anarchy. You are conflating the two. Political anarchy, however, varies widely in it's forms, and therefore can have an admittedly nebulous definition. The core principle, however, might be summed up as this: individuals are inherently moral, power is inherently corrupt and immoral, and one needs to resolve this conflict in order to achieve both individual freedom and a moral society. The various ways this conflict is addressed is the bases of the great variety of forms of anarchy. It does NOT mean "there are no rules", and it does NOT mean "social chaos". In almost every conception, an anarchist society has a great amount of order. For more on the varied forms of anarchism and history, I highly recommend the writings of George Woodcock.
It sounds like you aren't aware of the distinction between "anarchy" the political theory and "anarchy' in a colloquial sense. This distinction is critical to understand why those "posturing delusionals" you refer to are actually not delusional. Secondly, we already have murder, theft, and rape, and plenty of it is sanctioned by state and private power. Anarchists recognize immoral behavior by state, private, and individuals.
http://mysharona1987.tumblr.co...
http://mysharona1987.tumblr.co...