Peacepath

I would love to find good ideas for protecting digital freedom, and freedom in general. May we can assume that those who do not care about privacy aren’t using Lemmy… But I don’t know how to protect ours except by defending it as a principle that should be universal.

And so a rule to restrict freedom except for us is not a good news to me. It is not as bad as if we were concerned directly, but it is still a step backward. Isn’t it?

At some point they may need a new target, and we could be one. We are known by the general public while we are neither too much nor too powerful. And nobody would defend us beside those already targeted.

I know it is not the aim, I am concerned by how it may be used against free softwares… once more, I hope I am wrong.

Also, I am concerned by the loss of freedom involved by this policy. And I don’t think it is made to protect any one, just to restrict and control.

USA murdered anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti far before they became a significant threat to the system. What ever tries to bring freedom is so scared by american authorities… But once more, hopefully you are right and I am just overly pessimistic.

I hope you are right.

Yet do you know if the thing implemented by California would allow criminals to make sure that a kid is really a kid before they attack? Because if that is the case, and even if it needs a hack to do so, it may do the opposit of its aim.

So if you want to protect your kids from adult rated content, and you live in California, you need to buy a propietary system. Which make sure data collectors get to know all about them, and therefore doesn’t protect them… But am I the only one to see the commercial argument about to be used by MS, Apple, and others?

Now that you say it, it truely works. And look, for tabaco, before the poors were smoking and dieing of the consequences of it while evil rich were getting rich by selling them poison. And so it was the richs’fault!

Thanks to taxes, poors keep smoking and they still die of it, and rich seller still make money out of it. But now the fault is on the poors who are smokers…

Also, I would like to suggest heavy high taxe on sugar and sweet products so that blackmarket could keep growing. And since we now buy cigarets from illegal drug dealers, why not also buy from them our candies and sodas? It gives back some money to (the richest one of the) poor neighbohoods without direct intervention in the economy.

Education and program for healthy behaviour accessible even for poors would be so wrong: the richest would make less money and pass for the bad guys…

It is a good way to tax the poors while pretending it is ethical and for public health… May the poors would be healthier if they have less money?