People need to understand that having a majority opinion does not inherently give you the right to impose that opinion on everyone else. Such impositions must be done with extreme hesitancy and restraint.
That's why many democratic countries have a constitution which prevents the government from restricting certain individual rights even in the face of popular opinion. But ultimately, the constitution is just a piece of paper. If people are determined to impose their will on others, it can only do so much.
"Inherently give you the right"? Rights are not inherent properties of facts, they're concessions between people. Nothing inherently gives rights, rights are given by agreement. If people agree that majorities can impose their opinion, then they can.
> Rights are not inherent properties of facts, they're concessions between people.
We're getting pretty deep into philosophical territory now, but I disagree. Human rights, to the extent they exist at all, are necessarily inherent properties of individuals.
E.g. If the majority decides people with dark skin are subhuman and therefore have no rights, the majority is most certainly not correct about that, because rights are not defined by the majority opinion. They are inherent.
The U.S. Declaration of Independence put it like this:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
I concur with this perspective; rights are inherent and inalienable, and the purpose of democratic government is to secure those rights (which already exist), not to create them.
Everything you do affects others, unless you live in a cave in the mountains somewhere. Part of the reality of living in a society is constantly negotiating what is and isn't acceptable.
Yes? Democracy is essentially exactly that - tyranny of the majority. The reason why successful democracies have so many checks and balances, constitutions that uphold essential rights etc is because of this fact. Really the main benefit of democracy is that it prevents the government from doing things which are wildly unpopular. To the extent that it "gives the people power", that is neutered as much as possible to prevent the majority from going "hey, we don't want these people here" and committing democratic genocide or whatever.
The slave aristocracy of the Confederate States of America, and members only Communist Party of China are both democracies.
What we consider democracy went through a LOT of iteration, and continues to this day. Representative first-past-the-post is a form of democracy that can have the unfortunate side effect of the minority of the electorate establishing a tyranny of the majority. There is a lot of scholarship on how to make democratic systems more democratic.
> The slave aristocracy of the Confederate States of America
And the northern states--they had slaves too.
Ulysses S. Grant, when asked why he didn't free his slaves until some time after the war, reportedly said something like "Good help is hard to come by these days." It's not easily verifiable in today's world of useless search engines and confidently wrong and/or lying AI, but this quote is, in one form or another:
"The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side."
- General Ulysses S. Grant, USA, in a letter to the Chicago Tribune, 1862
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
- Abraham Lincoln, responding to Horace Greeley at the New York Tribune
I found the origin of that second Grant quote, and well as a boatload of other very interesting facts which one is quite unlikely to get from Google or AI these days, in "The Democratic Speaker's Hand-book" compiled by Matthew Carey, Jr., 1868.
> He threatened to resign and cast his lot with the South.
> The editor of the Randolph Citizen recalls some interesting reminscenses of the great Reticent. He had a tongue at one time, it would seem:
> In the summer of 1861 General Grant, then Colonel of the Twenty-first Illinois Regiment of Infantry, was stationed at Mexico, on the North Missouri Railroad, and had command of the post. He remained several months, mingling freely with the people, regardless of the peculiar shade of any one's political opinions; and as the distinguished Colonel had then no thought of aspiring to the Presidency or a dictatorship, no occasion existed for the reticence to which latterly he owed the greater part of his popularity. Ulysses the Silent was then Ulysses the Garrulous, and embraced every fair opportunity which came in his way to express his sentiments and opinions in regard to political affairs. One of these declarations we distinctly remember. In a public conversion in Ringo's banking-house, a sterling Union man put this question to him: "What do you honestly think was the real object of this war on the part of the Federal Government?"
> "Sir," said Grant, "I have no doubt in the world that the sole object is the restoration of the Union. I will say further, though, that I am a Democrat--every man in my regiment is a Democrat--and whenever I shall be convinced that this war has for its object anything else than what I have mentioned, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the purposes of the abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier that I will not only resign my commission, but will carry my sword to the other side, and cast my lot with that people."
It's really quite remarkable that the victors of that war succeeded so marvelously in convincing people years later that it was about slavery--that the racist white people of the North went to war and died by the hundreds of thousands to free black slaves--and they have people utterly convinced of that to this day.
Lots of other enlightening stuff to be found in that book, and in other original sources. Get the facts now while you still can, and preserve them.
"This is only one among the many proofs I had witnessed of the fact, that the prejudice of color is not nearly so strong in the South as in the North. [In the South] it is not at all uncommon to see the black slaves of both sexes, shake hands with white people when they meet, and interchange friendly personal inquiries; but at the north I do not remember to have witnessed this once; and neither in Boston, New York, or Philadelphia would white persons generally like to be seen shaking hands and talking familiarly with blacks in the streets."
That seems backwards to me. You can choose to personally not do business with whatever big tech corp you dislike. Men with guns will show up at your house if you stop "doing business" with the regional government.
I am also European, not sure why that matters though.
This type of argument always sounds to me like someone was abused by their ex-partner, but now prefers their new partner who abuses them a little less.
This is a common negotiation practice in business as well as politics. You make some absolutely outrageous demand, and people protest, but then you give them the -originally planned- light version of it, and they will accept it; in light of the worse option.
There is no reason to endure this BS, hence I referenced manufacturing consent.
I sometimes can not believe how easily people allow themselves to be manipulated.
///
And you can vote out "Big Tech" - by refusing to use their products. Giving up your rights to play some videogame, as GP outlined, is an absolutely sad thing to witness. There are people who fought and died for the rights we have, and we allow them to be eroded for some silly consumerism.
> And you can vote out "Big Tech" - by refusing to use their products
That argument completely ignores network effects. Case in point, Twitter is, for better or worse, still where a lot of public figures post their updates and announcements. It also now randomly bans people unless they give their biometric data to an oligarch that supports right wing extremists: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1ukil0b/twitter_x_...
I'm not sure what that has to do with age verification or such things, and even if you don't want to use the platform directly you can use mirrors like xcancel.com or nitter.net as drop-in replacements (which I use.) I dont think that site has any age verification measures implemented that are mandated by law as of now. But I'd just stop using it if they did or if the mirrors stopped working.
All in all, I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the original topic of EU being about to enforce 'age verification'.
That adds to the concern as a European. Thanks to the CLOUD Act, sharing data with an American tech company effectively is sharing data with the American government.
I don't fully trust my government. But I definitely trust it more than any American tech company.
I can also vote out my government. I can't do that for Big Tech.