@Moon ahhh I see.. that doesnt sound like a very pragmatic approach to me. But I understand now.

@freemo pragmatic, as opposed to philosophical. sorry if my wording was confusing.

@Moon @freemo yeah, your OP took me a bit to get, had to think lol.

I think such arguments come up from assumption that a lot of people don't really give a shit about human rights, privacy, decency, etc but do care about their wallets and their job.

If you stand up and say "internet surveillance is violation of human rights" people will say that you're just another lefty whiner triggered by some meaningless shit. But if you provide a pragmatic argument about implementing surveillance would be too expensive and have too much side effects, they may listen.

@lonelyowl

yea that is kinda what i assumed going in, that while thinking with your wallet rather than human rights is **not** very practical I could see how people might have an unhealthy relationship with what we see as practical and it may be considered "pragmatic" to think with your wallet rather than in terms of human rights.. but as i said i would find the opposite to be more pragmatic in reality.

@Moon

@lonelyowl @freemo they are all BS left-wing oriented pragmatic arguments like "women won't be able to keep abortion plans secret from the government" which is a stupid argument on multiple levels if you actually think about it

@Moon

Wait, what exactly do people use "women won't be able to keep abortion plans secret from the government" to aruge?

@lonelyowl

@freemo @lonelyowl their argument is that because state governments have attacked abortion, if the government can read your emails then they could punish you for trying to get an abortion. the reason this is a stupid argument is 1. you could use this argument for any law that anybody disagrees with that everyone else thinks is a good idea 2. the case in question, a woman was caught talking about abortion on facebook and the state government subpoenaed facebook and she went to jail. the problem is the real reason wasn't she wanted to get an abortion, it's because she gave birth, killed the kid and disposed of the corpse, it didn't actually have anything to do with abortion. and 3. the government already knows if you had an abortion because they already track all your finances and travel so what'sd the difference. it all just falls apart if you scrutinize it, it's really just an appeal to liberal fears.

@Moon

It probably isnt the best of arguments, but I dont think its as bad as you do.. like #1 I agree on (and partly why its a bad argument).. #2 obviously using that particular case is questionable at best, and the mother was in the wrong. But I think saying it has nothing to do with abortion is not entierly fair. It is related to abortion int he sense that it never would have happened if abortions were legal. So clearly there is some relationship there. #3 is half valid... like year they do, but no need to make it easier.

@lonelyowl

@freemo @lonelyowl I see the point you're making but ultimately they are making an argument against all government power. as long as facebook is used and they store the messages, at least in the USA the government absolutely has the power to get a warrant and get that data. the irony is this woman got caught not because of government forcing facebook to store her private messages forever to stop crime, but because facebook already was storing her private messages forever because facebook's entire business model is built on top of surveillance.

@Moon

Yea and thats why i agree, its a poorly framed argument even if it may hint at some valid truths in there while it does.

@lonelyowl

@freemo @lonelyowl so to bring it back around to my original argument, I think that arguing from values is less assailable than the types of arguments they're trying to make. I think they're making emotional arguments disguised as practical ones, I think that these types of arguments are easier to make people flip. in my lifetime americans have really turned against a lot of the first amendment arguments i was taught in like, grade school because they were so universally considered american values at that point. the NRA is successful because their primary argument against gun control is "fuck you"

@Moon @freemo @lonelyowl what do you think would it need to use "fuck you" as an argument for something else?

it’s because she gave birth, killed the kid and disposed of the corpse

Isn’t it about this case? damn why i wasn’t this kid

@lonelyowl @freemo yes

@freemo @Moon @lonelyowl It's an artifact of Roe v Wade, which was justified by an implied right to privacy from the government for pregnant women seeking an abortion (and no other scenario). It kind of seeped into every argument about abortion and warped into an emotional appeal because people didn't really understand the legal gymnastics involved in the case.

@Zettour

indeed

@Moon @lonelyowl

@freemo @Zettour @lonelyowl incidentally I am willing to admit I may be totally wrong about this and whatever argument will get rid of the surveillance is the "best" argument, not the one that I think is the most pure or whatever.

@Moon

I tell you what, toss me 20$ and i promise ill stop watching you.

@Zettour @lonelyowl

I also have a thought that legal prohibition of some surveillance practices in big tech is just a bad approach to the problem because they later will come up with something else anyway.

Maybe it would be better to concentrate on advocacy and developing free analogs. Apparently it's not such a bad idea, at least a lot of non-tech normies are quite happy to use mastodon.

We do need to criticize facebook, google or whatever for surveillance, but that's a secondary objective

@Zettour @freemo @lonelyowl I am not sure but I think the only tangible right to privacy that the supreme court has ever found was the right to abort your fetus, and honeslty I read the ruling and "penumbra" is the stupidest argument I have ever read, even worse argued than the racist supreme court rulings on japanese internment and the chinese exclusion acts and denying citizenship to former slaves

Arguments shouldn't be smart or correct, they should help us to get rid of surveillance.

However, maybe i'm too cynical about it because of general mood of the place i grow up 😀

@lonelyowl

I have this funny idea that if arguments should be smart, correct AND help us get rid of survellance... in fact id argue they **need** to be smart and correct if they are to help us get rid of it.

@Moon