Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j1m0q7d wrote

−3

marwayne t1_j1nhpvz wrote

So, just to make sure I’m understanding, your philosophy is that there is no point in taking the moral high ground because other people do not? What makes you right and them wrong in that case? Doesn’t that make you just another bad guy?

1

[deleted] t1_j1nld1j wrote

[deleted]

1

marwayne t1_j1nnxnq wrote

That’s a weird false premise and very distopian/Orwellian of you.

You sound like big brother himself.

Your assumption is that people in power are benevolent actors doing what’s in the best interest of the common person. You’re telling me the only options are sacrifice your rights/privacy for safety or die?

A far more plausible explanation for this rhetoric is fear mongering, which far right governments do all the time in order to consolidate their power and maintain it.

There is such a thing as deescalation

1

[deleted] t1_j1notq5 wrote

[deleted]

1

marwayne t1_j1o5on2 wrote

Did we read the same article?

““These are capabilities that were previously unimaginable,” says human rights lawyer Alon Sapir. “This is a dystopian technology from a human rights perspective. Just its mere existence raises serious questions.

In theory, such tech can be abused, he says, “One can imagine video being manipulated to incriminate innocent citizens or shield guilty parties that are close to the system, or even just manipulative editing for ideological or even political purposes should it fall into the wrong hands,” he says.”

This does not sound like the type of tech used by the good guys in defense. This technology is terrifying.

1

[deleted] t1_j1o7n3i wrote

[deleted]

0

marwayne t1_j1ob1j9 wrote

So your argument is, yea this tech is dystopian and terrifying so rather than fight against its use we’re going to do the bad thing first?

I don’t get it, are you a nihilist?

1