They are feeling personally attacked, by the content of the discussion, so they’re acting out. That’s completely understandable at a human level.
The reason we have these discourses is so we can hammer out our ideals, and see them implemented in different ways.
So let’s use other examples, so that people aren’t as emotionally invested in the particular discourse.
Telecommunication providers, at least in the United States, are given safe harbor from the content they deliver, so long as they don’t editorialize (select what’s allowed). If something’s illegal that’s up to the legal system to enforce. And if there’s a court order websites can be taken off, routes can be blackhold, links can be seized.
The United States government, and their politicians, have a long history of not cutting off the communication even of their enemies. We still maintained phone connections to the USSR during the entire Cold war. The internet was not shut off in Iraq during the Iraqi wars. Iran despite sanctions is still online. US certainly could bully many of the world’s interconnects to completely drop these countries. But they don’t. For a variety of reasons, but I think the most fundamental is you have to demonstrate that you believe in your free communication principles if you want everyone to mimic them. A secondary but still important reason, is to see what your enemies are saying. That’s actionable intelligence!
The EFF position is eminently defendable which is why lots of people here are defending it.
We can have a difference of opinion on how to tackle global crime. And I’m not undermining your position I feel your position is a reasonable one, but removing my rationale, devaluing my rationale and attacking my ability to think is not helping your argument.
“The guy I responded flamed me over something that I never said, and you’re all upmodding them and downvoting me because… I can speculate.”
“But it’s clear nobody here cares about the arguments. Nobody, not one, has addressed the issues I’ve raised. Insulted me, changed the subject, put words in my mouth, sure.”
I have not flamed you, I have not insulted you, I have not misquoted you. As the person your responding to, I’m sorry you have found yourself in this position.
Honestly, rereading all the posts here, no-one has insulted you at all, everyone has been more-or-less civil, with no name calling, or ad hominim attacks.
If your going to be upset with me, please at least be upset with me for things I’ve actually done.
They are feeling personally attacked, by the content of the discussion, so they’re acting out. That’s completely understandable at a human level.
The reason we have these discourses is so we can hammer out our ideals, and see them implemented in different ways.
So let’s use other examples, so that people aren’t as emotionally invested in the particular discourse.
Telecommunication providers, at least in the United States, are given safe harbor from the content they deliver, so long as they don’t editorialize (select what’s allowed). If something’s illegal that’s up to the legal system to enforce. And if there’s a court order websites can be taken off, routes can be blackhold, links can be seized.
The United States government, and their politicians, have a long history of not cutting off the communication even of their enemies. We still maintained phone connections to the USSR during the entire Cold war. The internet was not shut off in Iraq during the Iraqi wars. Iran despite sanctions is still online. US certainly could bully many of the world’s interconnects to completely drop these countries. But they don’t. For a variety of reasons, but I think the most fundamental is you have to demonstrate that you believe in your free communication principles if you want everyone to mimic them. A secondary but still important reason, is to see what your enemies are saying. That’s actionable intelligence!
deleted by creator
I did not accuse you of not reading an article.
The EFF position is eminently defendable which is why lots of people here are defending it.
We can have a difference of opinion on how to tackle global crime. And I’m not undermining your position I feel your position is a reasonable one, but removing my rationale, devaluing my rationale and attacking my ability to think is not helping your argument.
I see you updated your comment.
“The guy I responded flamed me over something that I never said, and you’re all upmodding them and downvoting me because… I can speculate.”
“But it’s clear nobody here cares about the arguments. Nobody, not one, has addressed the issues I’ve raised. Insulted me, changed the subject, put words in my mouth, sure.”
I have not flamed you, I have not insulted you, I have not misquoted you. As the person your responding to, I’m sorry you have found yourself in this position.
Honestly, rereading all the posts here, no-one has insulted you at all, everyone has been more-or-less civil, with no name calling, or ad hominim attacks.
If your going to be upset with me, please at least be upset with me for things I’ve actually done.