I wasn't arguing semantics, i was trying to figure out what semantics you were using and why so i could better understand the perspective.

I agree with all of those LLM arguments, with the exception that the last one is missing a bit on the end.

The LLM bubble is working as designed, to enrich the people running the scam, lots of people are going to lose a lot of money but i'd wager on the architects/early participants of the scam coming out with a large net positive.

Ok, thanks for that.

The reason i ask this is because from my perspective I'm not sure anything humans do could be considered outside of nature.

We are part of it so anything we do is also part of it.

That's not to imply we aren't stupidly destructive sometimes, but even technology is still something we built, like tool-use apes or birds.

The difference is in magnitude, not in type.

There are plenty of creatures that affect the environment around them , with or without tool-use. Sometimes those actions destroy their own habitats, things like overpopulation or key resource exhaustion.

That we are currently the pinnacle of fucking up our own environment doesn't differentiate us from other natural creatures, other than scale.

Even the idea of sentience and sapience could be considered evolution of a sort.

Yes, we have greater understanding about our actions and the consequences, but that's only as a result of traits formed by evolutionary pressures, i wouldn't consider cognitive abilities to be outside of nature either.

To follow on from that, selective breeding, for instance, would still be natural selection because the environment in which is happens contains only natural elements.

People sometimes get upset at the idea that we aren't special enough to considered "above" or "outside" nature which i why i try and get their perspective first.

Why do people so often invert the burden of proof?

I know, right ?

If someone says “Picking your nose will cause brain-cancer in 40 years.” Then they have the burden to proof that. Nobody has the burden to disprove that.

Absolutely, and if you'd asked for proof of their accusation you'd be correct in this instance.

They made the accusation that this is a step to make this age fields mandatory, and controlled by third-party age verification services, so they have the burden to proof that there is way to do that.

They did and you could ask them to make a case for that, you didn't.

You provided your own accusation:

You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?

And proceeded to tell them that they are required to provide proof to dispute your new accusation.

You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.

Which is what i was addressing specifically when i said:

You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.

I find it highly unlikely, because most people using Linux systems at home have admin privileges. Which makes this whole point moot, since they can fake whatever they like to the software running on top.

It makes the field itself mostly a non issue in the single isolated context of "does this field, on it's own, constitute age verification".

The point most people are trying to make is that it's a part of a larger context.

Highlighting this as another example of the continuous creep towards end goal while explaining the increasing encroachment is incredibly useful for getting more eyes on the bigger picture.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

edit: changed emphasis

Ah, this is probably my fault.

I'm not the person you were replying to so i wasn't really arguing any of these points, i just a saw the request and knew of an example, so i provided it.

Just in case this was for me specifically I’ll answer:

Yea I have zero issue with the fact that accounts with pictures of children’s genitals on them should be referred to the the authorities.

Pictures of children’s genitals aren’t inherently CSAM, there are plenty of parents and family members with entirely innocent pictures of their kids on their phones.

There are examples of this in the reported cases of false positives leading to bad outcomes, this is easily searchable.

I'm not saying to not do anything, I’m saying blanket reporting is an ineffective brute-force approach.

If people want privacy, host the pictures locally.

In theory yes, in practice, not so much.

on-device scanning exists and is in use/has been in use on phones, examples of this are also easily searchable.

When you’re storing images with a cloud provider. They become responsible for the images that they store. If it’s a photo of a child’s genitals and that’s illegal for them to have those images on their servers and they need to protect themselves.

The need for legal protection is valid, scanning cloud uploaded photo's is a user privacy nightmare, but expected.

End to end encryption (where only the users device can decrypt and see the photo) would probably stand up legally but then they wouldn't be able to use the cloud photo's to make money.

The problem comes with the recognition of illegal and the way it's handled.

Claiming that something is a fallacy doesn’t make it any less true. It’s a very lazy way of arguing.

I agree completely, i've seen an example of this recently :

It’s just a stupid “slippery slope” fear mongering.

I also have a list of examples of things that are not fallacies, just poor debate skills:

• Incorrect usage of a fallacy
• moving goalposts
• feigned ignorance
• projection

If i had to pick one though i'd probably go with the Invincible ignorance fallacy

The real problem is that some countries are actively trying to de-anonymize internet users. Not all countries accused of it are actually doing it, not all laws that people say will do it actually have this goal and not every technology that makes it possible will for sure be used with this purpose.

100% agree that this is a big problem, it's not the only one, but a big one.

I'm expecting it to work on a multiplicative curve, exponential ? geometric?

All of the bits from various places will add up and continue to accumulate momentum towards the goal.

Going on wild chases after some silly PRs in systemd or digital IDs is not helping anyone. It just serves as a distraction and makes fighting the real threats more difficult.

Which is again, not the point and also incorrect.

Highlighting this as another example of the continuous creep towards end goal while explaining the increasing encroachment is incredibly useful for getting more eyes on the bigger picture.

because.....the issue isn't the PR , but the intent behind it.

If it was just about the PR itself in isolation, i'd agree with you.

If anything, you trying to shut down the discussion around this "silly" PR is doing more to harm the general increase in awareness.

I'm not sure a strictly maths based ethics is the way to go, that's where you get into sociopath greater-good style considerations like "If i take out the managing team of , eventually they’ll recover but i'll have saved approximately X animals in the meantime"

Don't get me wrong, i'm not against that kind of thinking, i'm just not sure it's a viable long-term lifestyle.

In order to produce 1 steak, a cow has to die.

In order to produce n steaks 1 cow has to die.

Arguably it's probably slightly more than 1, given the morbidity rate of cows before they reach the "food production" stage.

In order to produce 1 phone, many different people have to work to produce it, enslaved or not.

In order to produce n phones a non-zero number of people will (likely) be maimed/outright killed while working under slave labour conditions.

If you include the more realistic cost/benefits i suggested above does that change the calculations involved for you ?

The following is an aside to the main conversation:

It was been pointed out that some electronics are as good as necessities for most people, while i think there's a subjective aspect to "necessity" I'll concede some electronics use it's not the same as meat consumption. Though i would further argue that under today's food production and distribution systems, meat consumption could be argued to be a necessity in some situations.

But that's almost certainly an entirely different conversation.

Yes. That formal enforced regulation needs to exist, and I don’t know anywhere that it doesn’t. In the US, you need a license, and you can only kill a certain number of the animal per season, and that’s all based on how many of the animals need to be culled, and it does need to be done. Equilibrium is maintained through this regulation.

Animals don't need to be culled, for the maintenance of the current pseudo equilibrium it's probably a good idea, but it's not an absolute requirement.

I never said “naturally healthy”

I literally quoted you.

I said they evolved to have a certain percentage of losses. If that isn’t maintained by other predators, we need to do it. It’s naturally (in its current state) unhealthy. Hunting is required to keep it healthy.

Hunting is the one of the current mechanisms we use to (roughly) maintain the status quo, it's not the only mechanism, nor is it the only option, it's just one of the ones we are using right now.

Healthy is relative in multiple ways, there would be a new equilibrium on the other side of the shitstorm that would probably arise from us dropping our current efforts with no replacement.

That might be subjectively bad for us, but it would exist.

Sure. That’d be another solution. If we’re discussing policy, I think we can safely ignore it though. There’s a lot of solutions that are not going to happen. We don’t need to rule out all of them to discuss what we actually can do.

Unless there's some sort of magic book that already has the answers to what is and isn't viable then we very much do need to rule them out, that's how decisions and policies are made.

No. They boom and collapse. This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while. It doesn’t reach an equilibrium state because they evolutionary pressures were different when they evolved. Maybe this isn’t true for all prey animals, but many, such as deer and rabbits, it is. Population booms, they eat all easily available food, they die off from starvation or disease, then they boom back.

I'm not sure what the no is about given the following sentences basically say the same thing i did.

If they aren't fit they die off, a new equilibrium is reached or the ecosystem collapses.

"They boom and collapse.,This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while." is one way an equilibrium is reached if the species(singular or plural) don't die off.

A lot of your argument against hunting is that it requires regulation. No one is arguing against that. It is needed, and this is already recognized and enforced. We just need to now enforce participation in a way that doesn’t create negative externalities from lead poisoning.

I'd be interested to see where you're seeing an argument against hunting from me as, afaik, i haven’t said anything to that effect.

My only argument has been that your statements were omitting what i would consider important context.

No need for apologies, you don't mean it and i don't really care about your opinion enough to warrant it.

judging by the replies so far I wouldn’t expect any level of good faith discourse

^

Responding with a deflection is on brand though, so kudos for consistency.

Depends on what issue they are trying to fix.

Chromium is a problem but it doesn't seem like that's what they are trying to address here.

I was talking about the technical monopoly wrt to rendering engines and web standards, Chromium is a problem but it doesn't seem like that's what they are trying to address here.

From that article it seems like they might be trying to separate chrome in hopes that that will enable the new owners to "decouple" it from google search.

If that's the case it's a dumb move if it's the only move they make, all that would happen is google would just build the new owners a scrooge mcduck swimming pool to make google the default search. Same thing they do with firefox.

It even says that in the article.

It would be interesting to see how they'd deal with the decoupling of the built in google proprietary panopticon bullshit.

They'd struggle to shift that over to chromium without upsetting...well..everyone.

D-O

Hyperbole doesn't strengthen your already flimsy argument, but I suspect that wasn't the intention so, you do you I suppose.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance