What is up with the sudden intense push for all of this Orwellian censorship lately?
Between this, Facebook, Google, and reddit trying to censor anything they deem to be wrongthink and the very hard push to deny American citizens their Second Amendment rights, I may have to consider purchasing some tin foil headgear.
It's become open season on the Bill of Rights lately.
It's starting to get more than just a little bit scary.
I think it was the election of Trump. Everyone expected Clinton to win. Most people in silicon valley and most costal elites (i.e. journalists) lean more to the left. I think there collective shock at the election result, combined with the fact that their services (i.e. facebook scandal, or how the media reported on trump) may have contributed to it have resulted into a doubling down on purging wrong think.
To add to this. More and more people are living in bubbles of ideological similarity[1]. There isn't really an exchange of ideas anymore between people who have divergent views. These days it is between moderates and extremists on the same side, rarely against someone who opposes an idea.
So when something happens that goes so against the grain, that is so shocking it demands a response you see the results like "trump derangement syndrome". Where everything bad the president does is hyped up far more than was under previous presidents, and every effort is made to return to the status quo.
Not to say that Trump is a good president, far from it. But Barack Obama banned people from travelling from the same countries as Trump and there wasn't massive outrage, protest and court challenges.
Societies are becoming more fragmented. Less and less are believing in the American dream or its equivalent and this is the outcome. I hope this isn't the start of the decline and decay and slow slide to irrelevance of the West like it was for so many past civilisations.
Its an attempt at shaming and shunning "wrongthink". They can't get much done via laws, or they feel its not enough. So people who think the "wrong" things need to be punished and ostracized from society.
Population control. That's not the hard question. The hard question is: what's the endgame? Why does every country in the western world want their citizens mute and unable to defend themselves?
> When investigating alleged violations of these Terms, Microsoft reserves the right to review Your Content in order to resolve the issue.
This is actually the most scary part of it. Not only you give up your freedom of speech when using their services, but you grant MS the rights to actively review all your data. That includes all your documents, emails, skype calls, etc.
Basically you give up any remaining online privacy regarding MS services.
And anyone who has ever moderated a community knows how frequently people get reporting for having a contrarian or unpopular opinions. This is ripe for abuse and setting a path for MS to castigate thoughtcrime.
Couldn't believe the headline, but wow, it's actually an understatement. Sharing "inappropriate content" including "for example ... offensive language" is banned from all Microsoft services.
But from the context, it seems that by "offensive language" they mean hate speech. Maybe. Or anything they want.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Most of the western world is a gun-free zone, and there are very very few shootings, except in the US, where there are apparently more guns than people.
Only in the US would it be argued that taking away guns would result in more shootings.
That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that.
I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States.
In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world.
The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American colonists were so well armed is probably a major reason for their success during the American Revolution. The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. History shows that calls for sweeping gun control are often a canary for planned authoritarian infringements upon our other rights.
A lot of the gun statistics that are reported are quite misleading.
For example, more than 60% of gun deaths in America are suicides. [1] I would suspect that the majority of these individuals would simply choose another means of suicide. From everything I have read our suicide rate is no worse than other similar developed nations.
We also have a massive inner city gang homicide problem. No matter how many gun control laws we pass, these individuals will continue to obtain guns through illegal means.
There are wide swaths of this country that are very rural and very remote. The police response times are over an hour in some parts of the country. Self defense via a firearm could actually be life saving. Additionally, as the recent Parkland shooting demonstrates, law enforcement is not guaranteed or even required to intervene to defend anyone from homicide.
> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check.
How's that working out for you? The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President.
Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.
> The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump...
That is probably because the Democratic party platform pushes strongly for gun control. [1] I know many people who vote Republican in elections primarily because of this single issue.
> ...whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President.
Could you elaborate on this? I don't think Trump is a great president by any means, and several of his speeches, interviews, and Twitter rants are not very Presidential to say the least. However, I can't think of any authoritarian actions he has taken that are outside of his Constitutionally granted powers.
>> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check.
> How's that working out for you? ...Trump...
Trump is not a tyrant, even though he'd probably like to be one if he could.
> Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.
Unfortunately, there's no way to legislate judgement or restrict rights to only those with judgement. Insurrection by its very nature is illegal, even if it's necessary and right.
> The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President.
Except for Obama, you mean? Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done.
> Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done.
This is obviously literally false (virtually all of Trump's official acts have been things that Obama did not do), and I can't see any obvious relevant non-literal sense where it is true.
Even in a narrow sense of authoritarian approaches to gun rights, the Trump bump stock ban is an action that was specifically rejected by the Obama Administration, not on policy grounds, but because it exceeded the power of the executive branch without legislative change.
When I think of authoritarian Presidential actions, I think more of drone striking U.S. citizens without due process. [1] However, you're right the bump stock ban does feel like an overreach of the executive branch.
> When I think of authoritarian Presidential actions, I think more of drone striking U.S. citizens without due process.
The power of the President to wage war under a Congressional authorization, including when those fighting for the enemy include US citizens, is pretty firmly established.
It's one of the reasons you really don't want Congress passing ludicrously broad authorizations and leaving them in force permanently.
But really, everything. Other than trivial descriptions of ceremonial functions (“issued a Christmas proclamation”), and possibly some periodic renewals, there's not a lot that is remotely the same.
Yes, and? All of those are different, narrower, and conduct-based bans not the same thing as (or even a similar thing to) any version of Trump's Muslim ban.
They're one and the same. In fact, when Obama made his bans, it was unprecedented and it went unchallenged. I could provide you with more examples, but this one is illustrative of the fact that you choose the facts that fit your narrative and ignore the rest. You are fake news.
You're right in guessing I'm not American, and I do appreciate you have a fairly unique situation there with the Second Amendment and the sheer number of guns already in circulation.
But, a while ago everyone outside the US thought it was only a few right-wing NRA extremists that would claim arming teachers was the solution to the school shootings problem.
But now you have a president threatening to pass it into law.
So the obvious next question is, where does it end? If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence?
> If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence?
None. Guns are a tool. If more guns would end all violence, then we just need to hire more cops and flood the street with them. Recent events have shown that is clearly not the answer. But, leaving law abiding people unable to defend themselves and their family against an armed criminal class isn't the answer either.
> If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence?
Even Europe with its in my humble opinion draconian gun control has not eradicated gun violence.
If gun control is the answer, why is it failing Brazil? They are actually considering making their gun laws more in line with ours. [1] They have a violence problem that is very likely a glimpse into the future of an America with European or Australian-style gun control.
The guns are not committing acts of violence, the people pulling their triggers are. To solve the gun violence problem, we need to understand why people desire to commit an act of violence.
The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. History shows that calls for sweeping gun control are often a canary for planned authoritarian infringements upon our other rights.
I don't think people with guns are going to fare to well against a government with tanks, nuclear weapons, jets, etc.
The Taliban seem to be holding their own, as did the Viet Cong before them, and if the US government is willing to nuke its own people we're beyond screwed.
That's the definition of "tyrannical rule". I'm not saying it's realistic to think that the government would go that far, but it's equally unrealistic to think that a few people with guns running around in the forest is going to be a match against the largest military in the world.
The Taliban has brainwashed people to think that they are dying to serve God and they and the VietCong had home court advantage. I don't think people who claimed to be "revolutionaries" in the US are that committed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an American insurgency have the same thing going for it?
Do you really believe that the entire military would just follow orders and obliterate their countrymen? It didn't exactly play out like that 150 years ago.
Also, ignoring the whole rogue tyrannical government turning on its citizens thing for a moment, does a person not have the inalienable right to appropriate means to defend oneself?
The criminals will continue to have guns no matter what laws get passed to "just do something about gun violence" and law enforcement proved that they cannot be relied upon to protect us from this villainy.
Maybe so, but he's still obviously right. The rest of the western world has border controls and customs inspectors guarding the boundaries of their gun free zones.
Maybe you want that in the U.S., fine. The fact is that guns are very prevalent and easily available in the U.S. Someone meaning to shoot up a school is not going to be thinking much about a gun possession in a school zone charge.
Yes, Canada has border controls and customs inspectors... I honestly don't understand how this is controversial. It's fairly difficult to get a license to own an AR-15 type rifle in Canada, the magazine is restricted to 5 rounds, and if you try to cross the border with one, you have a reasonable chance of being arrested. Once in Canada, if you take your American AR-15 to a shooting range, you'll be arrested. In the U.S., for better or worse, most anyone can buy almost any kind of gun they want. For someone that intends to shoot up a school, the prohibition on taking their legally acquired gun into the school zone is the least of the crimes they're committing.
Article author here. There are indeed very few shootings in Europe (excluding Turkey and Russia, of course). But there are plenty of stabbings. And occasional bombings and trucks running down crowds. And let's not forget the Bataclan.
My point is that people find a way to kill each other. We can reduce violence by addressing the root causes of violence better than by trying to take people's weapons.
What you want is end-to-end encryption, not just encryption between Microsoft and the client.
Skype was rolling out end-to-end encryption using the Signal protocol, I don't know if everyone has it now.
In any case, it's only available for voice not video, and you have to know to request a "private conversation" since it's not e2e encrypted by default.
What happens if I am writing a book and save a draft with office online that contains an expletive that might offend someone, would I loose all my content and work?
Between this, Facebook, Google, and reddit trying to censor anything they deem to be wrongthink and the very hard push to deny American citizens their Second Amendment rights, I may have to consider purchasing some tin foil headgear.
It's become open season on the Bill of Rights lately.
It's starting to get more than just a little bit scary.
reply