ok, so no word of a lie, i saw your comment, look at the name, read it as "fascistBasis" and I’m like dayum, they be self identifying and everything nowadays.
then realised my mistake.
Genuine question, isn't there enough genetic differentiation between certain populations that they would be considered a distinct grouping, is there a name for this ?
Like how medically there is enough (genetic) differentiation in certain circumstances to affect diagnosis and/or treatment.
I agree race is a social construct, especially given how it's used, I’m just wondering if there is a name for the groupings (or if they exist at all , i suppose)
edit: Added clarification to the differentiation to make it specifically genetic, because that could also be affected by environmental things.
further edit: now i think about it , genetics can just be a long term accumulation of environmental pressures so it's kinda murky anyway
That's a sound argument, mostly (in the quote, i mean)
If the technical implementation of how they would try and force age verification was the problem people were concerned about, this take would be very useful.
Physical locks on glass doors are easy to bypass, doesn't mean you won't get shafted if someone just so happens to catch you in the act.
If third party age verification is legally mandated the implementation being technically difficult (or easy to bypass) doesn't stop it from being illegal.
Being a condescending prick works better if the position you take is unassailable, you do you though.
You did not, points for effort though.
I'll try to make it simpler.
Ask for proof of claim they have made - YES 👍
Ask for proof to dispute/disprove claim you have made - NO 👎
if you suggest something is a fallacy , that's a claim you have made.
edit : emojis for visual cues
edit : changed no description to be more accurate
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.
No, they don't.
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.
edit: asking for an explanation of their thoughts around the issue is fine, but a requirement it is not.
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.
Yes, but also it's the 4th result on that page.
Seems like reading 4 entries is a problem so here is a direct link
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 also on slrpnk.net (same username) though i'm much more a lurker over there.
I'm all for the "everything is political" position, at least where animals are concerned (people are also animals).
I wasn't asking that question in seriousness but your points are interesting.
I'd think all the examples you provided are people politics , with a grass subject.
I think what i meant was "is physical grass inherently political" but i haven't thought this all the way through tbh.
I get that grass as a concept can be (and is) a political subject, but the physical grass itself ?
Like, can physical objects be inherently political if you take them outside of external political influences (people stuff)?
Hmm, i shall have to think about this one.