|
> Trust is primarily a function of reputation, peer pressure, and legal consequences. The trust is somewhat of a one-way street. We are supposed to trust the entities in power. If we break their trust, there are consequences. If said entities break our trust, we can do little about it. > I don’t see why anyone would want to remove any of this. To protect some freelance journalists in Iran? For some, perhaps. However, I also would rather protect people from a potentially grim future. What is permissible and acceptable now may not always be the case in the future. The Holocaust, for example, only ended 81 years ago. The notion of another one, even against different groups, seems completely infeasible -- the same as the first one. > I as a programmer who makes my living on the internet, would gladly support the shutting down of the whole internet if it would save the life of a single precious child. Tone is hard to read in text, but are you be facetious? If not, you are essentially saying that you would support shutting down the Internet to protect even just one child. Yet, despite these real and active harms that already exists, you will continue to still use and profit off the Internet in the meantime? |
If I stop my internet use that won't save anybody, so there's no point in doing it. If shutting down the whole internet is necessary to save a life, I would support it. The only reason I don't is because that's not possible and even if it were possible it would not actually save more people than it would harm right now.