[ben_w]

> just strings of words.

How did every non-inherited national leader, both democratic and dictatorial, both Roosevelt and Stalin, manage to become leader in the first place? Convincing people with the right string of words.

How does every single religious leader on earth, big and small, from the Pope to Jim Jones, get that power? Convincing people with the right string of words.

What is a contract, what is source code, what is a law? The right string of words.

There is no "just" when it comes to words.

That why they are important to protect, it is why dictators are afraid of them, and it's why it matters that we don't treat a magic box spewing them out faster than a machine gun does bullets as harmless.

[tmcdos]

It is quite obvious that the issue is inside the people - not inside the words. People have the ultimate power (a gift by God) to make decisions. Words can not force someone to do something - they are just sitting right there, doing nothing. Humans have flaws (probably by design - who knows) - and these flaws are the ones that all "safety" intentions MUST address. But 90% of humans prefer the easy path.

[ben_w]

Even with that attitude, the human flaws that make them act on those words, are known, and are exploitable and exploited.

If someone makes a device which is only safe when used safely, and they give it out to all despite being told of the risks, I think they are (or should be) liable for the misuse.

> a gift by God

I don't know which religion you follow. ᚦᛟᚱ᛬ᛟᚷ᛬ᛚᛟᚲᛁ᛬ᚺᛖᛁᛚᛊᚨ.

If you want a biblical reference, parable of the sower is just as valid when it's the word of satan.

[tmcdos]

Well, I am not such a strict follower of a religion but I believe that if someone listens to Satan - the consequences are his/her own responsibility, not a Satan's guilt. If I am not mistaken - Satan makes offers. You can accept or pass over. If you accept - you are liable, not the other way around. I am not aware of anything in this world that is safe even when used in unsafe way. Hiding an information just because someone thinks it is "not safe" is a classic censorship. Once the words are censored - there is literally just one step to the censoring of thoughts.

[N0b8ez]

It seems to cut both ways. If words are powerful, restricting words is also powerful. It's not clear why this leads to a pro-censorship stance, any more than to an anti-censorship one.

[ben_w]

Oh indeed. That's why dictators both censor and propagandise.

It's a narrow path, absolutely a challenge to walk without slipping, and not one I feel confident of humanity rising to even as a team effort.

Just like the difference between liberty and authoritarianism in general: much as I'd like to be an anarchist in theory, in practice that's just a way to let people with big sticks take over.