Voluntary precommitment measures like this need some kind of teeth to be effective. The point isn’t incarceration, it’s the ban from the casino. If they can return without consequences then it’s not really a ban.
It’s likely that they will be turned away rather than arrested, unless they try to force their way in or sneak in.
Remember, this is voluntary. It’s for people with a problem who want to cut themselves off because they can’t control themselves any other way.
The "misdemeanor trespassing" is understood by everyone - basically, you're choosing to be banned, and if you come back the cops will give you a nice little ride to the station and then let you go.
Similar things in the digital world would be the ability to lock your iCloud account so you couldn't download gambling apps, and if you want to be unlocked you have to send a notarized letter to Apple and wait and reply to a confirmation letter. This adds delay and makes it so you can choose "not to be tempted" in your right mind, and when you're desiring "the fix" you can't get it right away.
Perhaps now that the government no longer claims it to be as dangerous as heroin, we can start realistic public education efforts that distinguish responsible use from abuse. Not sure we’re there yet, though.
very cool, thanks! And since I can't respond to that poster, I'll say it here: thanks for that detailed answer! That definitely seems like a pretty anonymous system. I'm convinced that monero is a pretty private coin!
There are a number of things on Tindie that I have been unable to find anywhere else at any price. (Mostly small batch bespoke electronics.) I hope they figure this out.
Of course it didn't prevail. We live in an age where Russia and China demand VPNs get removed from the App Store. The US Government removed ICEBlock from all mobile storefronts. The worst-case scenario is staring us right in the face.
It's downright appalling that HN entertained these arguments against sideloading. No self-respecting software engineer can look at the centralized architecture of a billion-dollar software business and surmise that it wouldn't be used against them. The detractors against sideloading deliberately (or foolishly) ignored an outsized, glaringly obvious threat to their personal freedoms that was repeatedly emphasized by their opposition.
Oppression, censorship and surveillance are HN's just deserts.
Congratulations on completely ignoring what I said.
In perhaps clearer terms: HN is not a monolith. There are a variety of opinions here and intense disagreement. It’s very difficult to claim that any particular position is supported by a majority of users, given the arguments that erupt on nearly every topic.
(Or perhaps you are claiming that 100% of a site’s users are responsible for every opinion that is aired on a site, even if they disagree with it.)
I never claimed that the majority of HN shared that opinion, or that they should. You manifested both of those ideas from wholecloth.
The common opinion is still harmful, and it's enabled the harms to scale to the point we see them today. For an analog in modern politics, look at minority opinions like "think of the children" or "unnamed terrorist threat" and their role in manufacturing consent for tyranny.
A statement of fact? We share a common fate, switching to Linux or protesting Meta doesn't exempt you from the rule of law.
Edit: Oppression, censorship and surveillance are not a hypothetical consequence. The "justness" might be debatable, but the existence of it is objective.
It’s actually not a statement of fact, “just desserts” (implying that one is deserving of punishment or suffering) is a moral argument. Moral arguments are not statements of fact, although this does not make them necessarily invalid.
Speaking of which, HN arguably entertains executing censorship as much as any government, corporation, or organization. Often what is seen or presented, so people can think that's the prevailing view, is not a complete view. It's controlled and manipulated.
I don’t think you have contradicted his point here. Purely “free markets” are just as much of an illusion as “capitalism.” At the same time, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t valuable ideas.
“Freer” markets (for some definition of free) are certainly possible. Deng liberalized China’s markets, and despite persistent and heavy state influence, it has much freer markets today than under Mao. This has been great for the Chinese economy and raised a billion people out of poverty. One could argue that this wouldn’t have happened without state direction, but you can’t ignore the effect of liberalization.
In the US, we have been gradually restricting the freedom of the productive parts of the economy, often by subsidizing scams that put legitimate competitors out of business, or allowing monopolies or private equity to destroy them despite rules intended to protect fair competition. At the same time, we have let scam industries off the leash, and they are free to basically commit open fraud with no controls. It’s a kind of freedom, I guess.
> When people talk about a "free" market, they mean "free as in fair".
> When billionaires talk about "free" market they actually mean "free as in deregulated".
> You don't get "fair" without regulation.
Correct in theory, but you have another definitional problem here.
When people talk about “regulation”, they mean protecting people and businesses against predatory behavior through fair legislation.
When modern politicians talk about “regulation” they mean handouts to friends, government guaranteed monopolies through regulatory moats, and rules designed to harm perceived opponents.
We have a real problem here and it’s going to take some serious effort to fix it before it becomes an issue of “who and whom.”
As a Spaniards, I'd say that it depends on the service. Public healthcare it's golden, private healthcare for minor stuff it's oka-ish but for hearth strokes, you are just a number, run away. Public healthcare will cover that and far more.
OTOH, the state monopoly on telecomms since elder times (Telefónica) had scam level prices for most calls and long distance calls were a ripoff; and OFC no flat rates for internet in late 90's. Then the market opened for tons of telecos/ISP's and the prices plummetted down.
There has historically been a lot of US-critical content manufactured by the US, which normally deflects criticism towards individual failings, external enemies, or surrogate political effigies. A few examples: Falling Down, Bulworth, American Beauty, all the other 90s/00s media critical of suburbia, 24, The Daily Show. Most of these are left-coded, I’m not as familiar with the right-coded stuff (I usually tuned it out) but from what I can tell it’s usually aimed against foreigners and weak/effiminate liberals. 2010s/20s race activism made “white people” into the effigy for the first time, but that’s still a deflection.
Pre-sale TikTok was the first time that a mirror was held up to US politics from a global perspective, where the masses could get a less fitered and channeled understanding of how they are seen by the world. (Reddit provided this previously but it has fewer users and less impact.)
As much as I hate TikTok and short videos, it had a big impact. There’s a reason that they forced the sale. Domestic control of mass media consumption is the primary method by which public opinion is shaped within the US.
> which normally deflects criticism towards individual failings, external enemies, or surrogate political effigies
And next to that is the ever-profitable imperialist/capitalist/inherently-racist pigs content.
> the first time that a mirror was held up to US politics from a global perspective, where the masses could get a less fitered and channeled understanding of how they are seen by the world
This was happening simultaneously on other tech platforms. Moderation varied. But I think a lot of people are mixing up the tail and the dog in terms of which way causation flowed.
What service? The social media regulations I recall seeing have a size threshold, so hobbyists don't seem relevant. For something like porn, after having actually thought about it some, I don't really see how we've decided that anonymous porn isn't blatantly public indecency, so frankly I don't see how hobbyists openly sharing their work with anyone without knowing who they're giving it to wouldn't be committing a crime.
> I don't really see how we've decided that anonymous porn isn't blatantly public indecency
That one seems pretty obvious. The point of public indecency laws is so that your family can go to McDonald's and not encounter some couple fornicating on the table. Whereas if you go to a private house where someone lives with a reputation for not being very selective about who they take their clothes off in front of, that's not a public establishment.
A privately owned PC connecting to a privately owned server is a private connection, not a public place. It's something you get by going there. You're not required to go to the frat house.
A private business that serves the general public is a public establishment though, even if it's run out of your home. The criteria is whether you restrict access to some private group, not whether it is a privately owned space. I'm not seeing how a server that responds to any traffic without any selectivity (KYC, basically) is not analogous.
It doesn't matter if you're not required to go to the frat house. It matters whether the frat house lets the public in while exhibiting their fornication, or has filters at the door.
It’s likely that they will be turned away rather than arrested, unless they try to force their way in or sneak in.
Remember, this is voluntary. It’s for people with a problem who want to cut themselves off because they can’t control themselves any other way.
reply