These are the kinds of things that annoy me in relation to celebrities. For instance, Taylor Swift/Kanye could raise this issue and probably single-handedly cause enough upset to have this changed/removed.
I wish they worked positive (and sure, sometimes they'll probably get it wrong) policy change rather than quiet charities and token signalling.
In terms of the government using it for ransom, well, the other side should absolutely say they'll shutdown government if these privacy overreaches are not removed. Put the pressure back on and vocalise the absurdity of the situation. But hey, it's not a wild guess to say both sides are really in support of the measure and use the 'ransom' as an excuse to pass it.
Imma let you finish, but Kanye is a poor example to make your point. He has one ineffective charity in Chicago and otherwise all public action has revolved around showcasing his own struggles while simultaneously presenting himself as the solution to the world’s problems.
Swift has been fairly vocal and ignited action around LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, sexual assault topics, and drastically improved voter turnout among her fans.
None of those advocacies being effectively controversial / MSM disfavored. Essentially, they read as an almost required checklist for establishment darlings. Advocating for them isn't bravery, today. It's common business sense.
The point being that these advocacies aren't a substitute, in any sense, for one that might draw her negative press. If the measurement is bravery, or unusual effort or some such.
Do you consider the network with the highest viewership and ratings numbers to be mainstream, or are you using "MSM" as coded language? Taylor Swift's advocacy was disfavored on Fox
I think they were getting at the concept that there's more refinement between left vs right so placing MSM as a position representing that side of the isle not making a distinction that there aren't those on another side completely that will always be upset. I mean AOC, Bernie, and Biden are fairly distinct politically but all "left."
I do think it is a reasonable complaint that you're not using your platform to be a bit more specific and place a foot down rather than maintaining the air of ambiguity and generalizes. It is reasonable to interpret the latter as a political move rather than one of personal convictions, though they may be honest. But similarly one can see someone like her as having a lot to lose as well as seeing her have nothing to lose. Former because she can lose her yearly profits but latter because she's a billionaire and so fucking rich that it's pretty difficult for her to lose a billionaire lifestyle and it's not like she's going to lose all her fans no matter what she does. Of course she could be sued by her employers... But either way it does say how much she values her own convictions compared to the other things. Messy, but I don't think unreasonable to call her out.
FWIW I don't know anything about Swift but I at least can say I haven't heard of this controversy. That's at least some signal. Not a strong signal. Definite not one that says one of you are right or wrong, but it is _a_ signal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (I'm definitely not making a claim on knowing what her actual convictions and beliefs are. Woefully unqualified and honestly don't care too much. Just trying to provide a bridge because I see reasonable miscommunication and I think there's probably ground for a good conversation between both of you)
> I mean AOC, Bernie, and Biden are fairly distinct politically but all "left."
That's very debatable. I'm not from the US, but from what i gather AOC/Bernie would be considered centrists. Center-left would be the green party pushing actual (moderate) reform. And on the left you would have stuff like the communisty party, IWW and such.
I mean, advocating for moderate social justice and redistribution of wealth is not "left-wing". It's a principal component of social democrats even on the right. Even hardcore fascist rightwingers like De Gaulle or Hitler had to have some sort of social agenda and nobody ever thought to call them left-wing...
I mean parties in the US are more akin to coalitions as you'd see in many European countries. I'm just saying that American parties have high variance within them. Sure, for your country Bernie/AOC may be centrists but in America they aren't. These are always relative terms that are context dependent. Sure, you can call the Democrats right wing but it's just not going to make much of a conversation because these are nationally agreed upon terms. (fwiw, I'm pretty sure I'm fair in assuming American context given the people I'm discussing)
> I see from your post history you are operating with a definition of "fascism" that counts any highly capitalist state as fascist
A definition of fascism is the merger of State and corporate interests (according to Mussolini himself). De Gaulle was very much in that vein, via the Jacques Foccart State mafia (Françafrique) or the nuclear military-industrial complex among others.
From a less economic perspective, De Gaulle was actively involved in heavy repression in the colonies including genocidal policies in Algeria (see for example Frantz Fanon on the topic, or history books about Setif and other massacres), and deadly repression of social movements on the mainland via the police and military, and actual fascist militias such as the Service d'Action Civique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_d%27Action_Civique
Short anecdote of the day, De Gaulle and his government (eg. Maurice Papon, former nazi collaborator and prefect of Paris under De Gaulle) personally orchestrated the killing of hundreds of algerians in Paris on October 17 1961. A few years before in 1958, they went as far as to round up and deport thousands of algerians, in the very same spot the Vichy administration used to round up jews: the vélodrome d'hiver.
I am certainly anticapitalist but i would not equal capitalism with fascism. Adam Smith and other capitalist thinkers certainly envisioned a free-market along with free individuals, which was based on the absence of monopolies/oligarchies and the separation of State and market. The State defending and supporting the industry while letting the people suffer is certainly not capitalist in a traditional liberal sense. For an example of that, see the bank bailouts in USA or Greece where the government saved the banks for billions of dollars while taking from the people, instead of doing exactly the opposite.
I agree fascism is a nebulous concept and subject to debate. I would recommend reading the Wikipedia page on the topic. It may appear that western States usually depicted as "liberal democracies" have in fact more than a few fascistic tendencies.
But there's a definitional problem here. Do celebrities avoid talking about anything controversial, or does anything that lots of celebrities talk about become perceived as non-controversial? You talk about the "MSM" and the "establishment", but quite a lot of news outlets and politicians in the US don't agree with what Taylor Swift has to say about LGBT rights.
Swift was advocating for topics she felt passionate about and had some level of firsthand exposure. I’m glad she doesn’t opine on how government surveillance is funded.
Also her reach is far larger than all MSM combined, she doesn’t have to follow what they do, they follow her.
I really like a lot of what John and Hank green have done with their fame recently, funding healthcare for low income companies and publicly calling out drug companies when they screw extremely poor people over
Celebrities might present themselves as of the common people and they probably once were. Don't let them fool you. Other than a few exceptions, they are in the upper class and partying with the rest of the owner/donor class. Their interests are aligned to ensure that the common folks never get enough power/privacy.
Celebrities depend on media favor for career survival. Their favor on crucial political topics is therefore captured. In other words, most celebrities don't have the effective freedom to be able to advocate for any political cause.
> These are the kinds of things that annoy me in relation to celebrities. For instance, Taylor Swift/Kanye could raise this issue and probably single-handedly cause enough upset to have this changed/removed.
Unless of course they are handled by the state apparatus itself:
>I'm going to help you one of a couple ways.…. First, you and I sit down and have an loving and open conversation, but you don't use cuss words, and everything that is discussed is based in fact, and not some crazy stuff that dumb friend of yours told you, or you saw in a tweet.
>Second option, I have you institutionalized again where they medicate the crap out of you, and you go back to Zombieland forever. Play date with the kids just won't be the same.
> His Wikipedia page states that "During his time at U of T, Pasternak served as a nutrition and exercise scientist at Department of National Defence's Defence and Civil Institute for Environmental Medicine."
> [...]
> What sort of stuff is researched at DRDC?
> "Human systems integration."
> "Social and psychological factors that affect the resolution of conflict."
> "Psychology of malicious intent."
> "Social and cultural factors influencing behavior."
If a celebrity spoke out on this issue, wouldn’t that basically just result in the tabloid press responding with a campaign of “Hmm, what does he/she have to hide?” No surprise if people who already find it hard to live a private, peaceful life don’t want to invite that on themselves.
Celebrities do adopt political causes, but can generally only influence one issue; maybe something broader by endorsing a candidate or party, but with massive dilution. To do more they'd have to become politicians, but those who do almost inevitably end up operating within personality cult dynamics as opposed to responsible statecraft.
I’d rather not have celebrities use their cultish followings to push for any cause, good or bad because they tend to be ignorant on the issues and only superficially attach themselves to some aspect.
Mental exercise: what if we then voted on the celebs, voting for and against the causes celebs put up?
In my view, you're gripe is that this system would be super shallow. Kind of agreed! What could give it more depth & substance, what could better direct this available energy? Sure, "don't" is a valid answer! But also, what might we try?
I feel like you have it backwards. You're saying that democratic involvement would make these issues cause celebres. But celebrities in many cases already have the power to make a cause a cause celebre. That's part of what being a celebrity and using your name & fame is. We already live in the world you describe.
I'm proposing here a thought experiment where, rather than letting the public arena and media suss out how to play the story, let the cause go on indefinitely, the public gets a direct vote.
My actual hope was the opposite of what you say: rather than leaving the media cycle around celebrities rumble on indefinitely, there'd be some discrete feedback events, checkin points where we can decide whether this de-facto cause celebre is - to borrow from a magazine - wired tired or expired. My hope was democracy might take power back from the 4th estate & celebrities.
Maybe a different take is you vote your tax contributions on the issues voted up for consideration.
So by pop vote people vote their favorite causes (schools, roads, homeless shelters, prisons, climate, pensions, etc.) and as a taxpayer you can vote your dollars/currency into any number of causes you can spread your tax contribution among.
Well that's what Ukraine are doing in voting for Zelenskyy's views... I think we often overestimate the qualifications behind our politicians, they're not much different to the celebrity love-ins or corporate nepotisms running rampant as-is (the obvious ones being Trump and Biden).
How about this: We have celebrities share their political views on a range of topics. The media will cover which celebrities say what positions, perhaps moderate a debate among them. The people then vote on their favorite celebrities, and those who are the most popular get to collectively vote on political decisions. If they make unpopular decisions or go back on what they promised, then the people can vote for someone else during the next regularly scheduled election.
/s (in case you're missing it, politicians are already effectively celebrities)
Given how little people on this very forum understand Section 702, why would you think that Ye would understand it well enough to take an informed stand that is convincing to his followers?
In ancient Rome actors were so low status they were subject to infamia, which meant that they couldn't defend themselves in court and could even be beaten or killed without legal repercussions.
It was considered to be a worthless profession (actors were seen as professional liars) akin to prostitution.
Not all celebrities are actors, but my point is that Romans were around for almost 2000 years and that should tell you something.
That would require integrity and honesty, something fame rarely allows for. But I agree, but I would refrain from asking Kanye to voice his concerns at this particular issue at this particular point in time.
Celebrities are about as ignorant about the issue as regular people, but there's also millions of people vying for them to say stuff. So much so that it's literally a commodity that they sell.
Furthermore, celebrities often get pushback for making political statements, even extremely milquetoast ones like "Israel shouldn't collectively punish Palestine for Hamas". Their job is to be liked by everyone, which means they can stand for nothing.
That being said, I know of few people who actually support America's current surveillance apparatus. Liberals hate it because it's corrosive to liberal democracy; Trumpists hate it because it hurt them; and left-wingers hate it because they're the intended target. The phrasing I use for this kind of issue is "anti-partisan": the general voting population hates it, but politicians want it to continue because it's instrumental to other goals that the voting population would support.
A key wrinkle is that most anti-partisanism would also disadvantage wealthy individuals if it got its way - i.e. right to repair harms OEMs' god-given right to force you to buy a new one - so wealth tends to rally around continuing the thing we don't want. Celebrities are sort of in the wealth orbit insamuch as social capital and being well known is a saleable commodity, so they also have a tendency to orbit around opposing antipartisan issues.
In other words, they don't want the CIA to spy on them, but they also want a neoliberal economy to sell products into, which is growing increasingly unpopular, which requires having a CIA spy on extremists, which means they want the CIA to spy on someone else. None of this is consciously understood or planned, there's no CIA guy telling celebrities to shut up about the spying, it is merely a coincidence of class interests and incentives.
While I've believed that developing privacy and encryption tech was ignoring the deeper problem, and it was a poor substitute for using that effort to actually engage with and reform the institutions we use privacy tech to protect ourselves from, when you are up against anonymous cynicism like earmarking continuity of government bills, the only thing left to do is shrug and become a cypherpunk maximalist. Life is too short. Might as well ride this civilization into the ground.
> developing privacy and encryption tech was ignoring the deeper problem
It was not. Even with privacy-respecting government and laws (and corporations), it is important that mass surveillance isn't easy, or it's virtually guaranteed to happen.
Stealing is illegal, yet you don't leave your cash savings on the windowsill.
Way past time to get assassination markets back in the popular imagination so that a new generation can re-litigate the usenet flame wars of olde, amplified by a factor of ten thousand.
Not wrong, but kind of incomplete, given that all sorts of policies get held hostage with these stupid "Congress makes impossible mutually conflicting demands" fights.
This is why Democrats and traditional Republicans secretly love having narrow majorities. It lets them shove down our throats otherwise unsavory policies in the name of keeping the lights on.
> Section 702 is a key provision of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the United States, with the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers, to acquire foreign intelligence information.
As a US citizen, why wouldn't I want this reauthorized?
Because the intelligence community has interpreted it to allow them to collect enormous amounts of U.S. persons communications and have analysts parse it and read it to make a determination on its foreign intelligence relevance.
Or if you're hot, some teenage intelligence analyst will make a copy of that nude you sent to your spouse to save for his personal spank bank.
It's all for national security you see. All without a warrant. Because intentionally collecting information they know will be predominantly on U.S. persons is a-okay as long as one or two drops in that ocean of U.S. persons communication is of foreign nationals communicating.
Funny to see this make headlines here, where many people would gladly support using mass surveillance to fund the government. The same ones that support financial privacy restrictions are quick to play victim when the same violations are applied in ways that don’t benefit them.
That's how it works. People support policies that are beneficial and don't support policies that are harmful. Privacy is just one component of this evaluation. If we demand absolute privacy with no government oversight, even by warrants, the cost of increased crime will be larger than the marginal benefit from increased privacy. If we demand that nobody can hold somebody else's data, the cost to businesses that rely on their employees getting information from their company's logged communications will be larger than the marginal benefit of increased privacy.
It’s how it works for people that lack consistency. If you don’t want absolute privacy then you are also free to support an absolute lack of it. “I want privacy except when it stops me from getting at other people’s money” is not an acceptable option.
No, they're consistent on what matters. Privacy isn't the be-all and end-all of utility. It's merely one component. Being able to take back money stolen by a crook is something that most people value, and they are happy to pay the privacy cost to get it. A foolish consistency (insisting on absolute consistency for the wrong concept) is the hobgoblin of little minds.
You are free to sacrifice your own privacy. This discussion is about whether you have the right to forcefully sacrifice mine. You’re only consistent in doing what benefits you, even if that means your support for a policy depends on who is involved and not what it does.
Yes, I am free to sacrifice yours. That's how laws work. Try to proclaim yourself a sovereign citizen and tell a judge that warrants don't apply to you if you don't believe me. If you don't like laws, there are lawless places like Somalia for you to call home.
I support policies based on what they do. That includes weighing everything they do, not just their effect on privacy.
I presented a consistent idea. Net benefit. It's a consistency that actually makes sense instead of ending up with crooks taking money from everyone and people being unable to stop it because they couldn't understand the concept of laws.
> You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab.
Yes, I support less privacy for people being investigated for crimes. Are you really unfamiliar with the concept of a warrant? Everything I've said is really basic stuff, and it's truly mind-boggling that I have to explain it at all.
Your question is nonsensical. A law makes sense if it is beneficial. If it isn't, it should be changed. While it is in force, it applies to everyone. This is something that first graders learn at around the same time they're introduced to the idea of democracy. Given the comment votes, it appears you're the only person who still doesn't understand.
I'm curious what the `upvoteCount/commentCount` will be for this post.
I'd also be curious to see a chart where x is time and y is a score for something along the lines of "I am free to critique the US government without any form retaliation".
Yes, we understood your implication that the government is punishing critique by down voting hacker news posts. I think you got down voted because people disagree, not because they didn't understand.
I wish they worked positive (and sure, sometimes they'll probably get it wrong) policy change rather than quiet charities and token signalling.
In terms of the government using it for ransom, well, the other side should absolutely say they'll shutdown government if these privacy overreaches are not removed. Put the pressure back on and vocalise the absurdity of the situation. But hey, it's not a wild guess to say both sides are really in support of the measure and use the 'ransom' as an excuse to pass it.