jvdizzle's comments

It's one thing to be a techno-anarchist and it's another thing to be reasonably skeptical about government and what it considers "justice" and the ramifications of that "justice".

The way the government has been approaching cryptography and privacy in general is very much "throw the baby out with the bath water, we don't need it". What is happening in the financial privacy space (i.e. developments in crypto) should be alarming to anyone who believes in democracy, in my opinion.

If you think of consumer purchases when you think of financial privacy, you live in a bubble of privilege.

There are literally countries where people get sent to jail for giving money to pro-democracy groups or journalists.

If you're an American, imagine a scenario where rights are stripped away from people at the federal level and donating to those causes becomes illegal.

Surveillance has impacts far beyond your consumerist lifestyle.

So, what? Hire new people to replace the ones that left and then eventually have to do a purge again in 5 years? This appears more to me like a short-sighted easy-way-out kind of move.

Why not spend the time to build channels for constructive political discussion? The workplace does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot isolate work from politics these days.

Literally no one is condoning assassination of police officers on- or off-duty. No one is condoning rioting or looting. But we are adult enough to understand that rioting and looting are the result of civil unrest when the people do not feel heard.

We're facing massive unemployment that could last an undetermined amount of time. We have models of previous economic downturns but this one is different because there is so much uncertainty with this virus.

When UI benefits are exhausted, consumer behavior will change dramatically. People will come out of this a lot more conscious about what they're spending money on. The fact that unemployment in the US is expected to peak at 20% means a lot of the country (and world) will have been affected. How will consumer demand look for the years to come after the pandemic?

We may not see a quick comeback in terms of employment because companies will be looking to replace productivity through automation as insurance against future disruptions. Additionally, small businesses which employed a large percentage of people will have been devastated by the economic shutdown. Many will have folded and won't be there when the economy resumes again.

In terms of socialization, bars and restaurants aren't going to magically reappear. It's going to take time, years in some areas, to rebuild downtown.

I think one thing is for certain: there are a lot of opportunities for tech to fill the gaps, but it won't be the same consumer world as it was before the pandemic. It's hard to predict what exactly those opportunities are-- this is uncharted territory.

> Their own government created the pre-requisite conditions for this

So we aren't going to talk about decades of US destabilization of Central and South America for corporate profit?

I don't agree-- I don't think most people want to be power users nor do I think science and technology is supposed to produce more power users. People want hard and complex things to be done easier for them.

It's interesting. Every time the topic of privilege is brought up, usually the first thing someone who disagrees with the concept of privilege does is talk about themselves. Understanding privilege is not about talking about yourself. Privilege is about recognizing that there are people are who not you, and who did not have your story.

Well, I'm going to break the bad news to you... You were lucky. You're lucky you yourself aren't disabled. You're lucky you aren't black, or LGBT. You're lucky you had two parents, and both of them were healthy enough to work. Et cetera. Maybe you are privileged in some ways, but underprivileged in others.

Privilege is about recognizing that there are many others whose identities reduce their ability to take the same risks in a society that is not free of biases or oppression. Privilege is relative.

Privilege is not about disqualifying your experience or story. Privilege is about equity. And I'm not talking about shares or options. I'm talking about recognizing that others may need a bit of uplifting to get to the same place as you.

Your family was able to take risks, and profit from it. I hope you can stand in someone else's shoes who did not have the same fortune as you, and reflect so that yourself are not becoming a vehicle that reinforces privilege.

It's also your responsibility to educate yourself. It's not like institutionalized racism is some "subtly intangible miasm". For an example, read up on African Americans and the G.I. Bill after WW2. Heck, the Civil Rights Bill was passed only a little over 50 years ago, after centuries of marginalization. If you want a more modern example, read up on studies of racism in the justice and education systems.

Actually you can-- look up jury nullification.

When the slaves from the southern US started escaping north and towards Canada, many northerners who aided them were put on trial because technically they broke a law because slaves were considered property.

The jury would acquit them because they did not believe in the spirit of the law.

Some people believe jury nullification is required for a truly democratic justice system.

Also in this scenario, the fork is essentially the majority's way of saying "we don't believe in the spirit of this contract, it wasn't meant to behave that way." Obviously, that brings up many complications. But the majority believed that a fork is essential to save the platform and worth the potential split in the community.

Sorry, that's not an excuse here. The issue was not a breach. It was an uncaught bug that revealed the moderator's identity when they performed an action against the alledged terrorism group.

This is a process and protocol oriented issue. Facebook could have allowed the moderators to use anonymized accounts, or have better error testing.