Comment

Comment on Surprise EU rollback of 'GDPR' digital-rights rules prompts alarm

Explaining something no one asked to be explained without providing an opinion on the subject itself reads like tacit approval. On a subject such as this - "reduce your privacy for the benefit of AI companies that are some number of:

monopolies that should have been busted many times over
run by evil, greedy people who do not consider safety for the entire world when developing these things (reference Musk saying there’s a chance these destroy the world but that he’d rather be alive to see it happen than not contribute to the destruction)
companies aiming not to better the world in anyway but explicitly pursue money at any real cost to the human lives they’re actively stealing from or attempting to invalidate." - it’s no surprise the comment is unpopular and gets downvoted.

If I stopped my comment there I’d get voted on based on my explanation of what just happened assuming I was pro-this process because that’s human nature (or maybe it’s a byproduct of modern media discourse where they ask questions but don’t answer them and expect you to fill in the blanks (look at most of conservative media when it’s dog whistling or talking about data around crime or what have you)).

I don’t think someone should be voted into the ground for explaining something, but I also think every online comment should do it’s best to make a stand on the core subject they’re discussing. We are in dire times and being a bystander let’s evil people win.

So practicing what I’m preaching: Privacy laws should absolutely not be reduced for the benefit of AI companies. We should create regulations and safety rails around AI companies so they practice ethically and safely, which won’t happen in the US.

source

Sort:hotnew top

iii@mander.xyz ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

Explaining something no one asked to be explained without providing an opinion on the subject itself reads like tacit approval.

Do some people’s brains really work like that? I prefer it when people simply describe a problem, instead of making it all tribal and mixing reality with opinion!

source
- gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I mean, I like when I ask someone to explain a problem and then do. I don’t personally like it when someone explains a problem that’s pretty obvious.
  
  My point is the original commenter, by explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation. Actually, on second read it’s far more explicit - they’re defending why the change was made, not just explaining what happened. The downvotes were warranted (if you use downvotes as “this is a bad opinion, perspective, or contribution” which is debatably not their purpose).
  
  But the reality is even in describing a problem you’re coloring reality with your perspective. There are facts, things everyone can agree on, but in describing those things you color them. It doesn’t have to be tribal to push back on someone coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).
  
  source
  - iii@mander.xyz ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation
    
    I understood that point of view. I just don’t agree, at all! I prefer factual conversation, describing the dilemma. OP demonstrated that they understand that the problem has multiple tradeoffs.
    
    coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).
    
    The original commenter didn’t do that? They described the tradeoff.
    
    I think you prefer tribal, coloured conversation. To the point where if it doesn’t match your preferred colour, you very quickly and incorrectly assume people are anti your colour?
    
    source
    gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    “The EU needed to either loosen up too or accept this entire sector of information tech being foreign-controlled, which would have its own major privacy and security problems.”
    
    This is the original commenter justifying why the EU is attempting to loosen their privacy laws. This is not factual, this is not an objective truth, this is one person’s perspective about why the EU is doing what they’re doing and in a way that defends their position.
    
    If they had said, “Maybe the EU felt the need to… In fear of this entire sector…” That would have revealed that statement to be a less objective, more theoretical opinion - which is what it is. But they didn’t. They wrote it as a fact, defending their decision as if A) that was true B) that was the reason instead of a handful of reasons C) it was the only path forward.
    
    I think if you’re reading that statement by the original commenter in any other way, we’re at least misaligned on what they’re saying. I would argue that statement plainly reads as defending their actions by guessing (even if reasonable or intelligently) as to their motives.
    
    I think you’re throwing around tribal like a buzzword you recently became aware of. I like people having opinions on random comment based forums online. I don’t like when people don’t add to the conversation and yet comment anyway, allowing for wasteful conversations like this to take place. The original commenter explained a thing no one asked to be explained at best and defended a perspective that I think is objectively short sighted at worst. I have no problem with the first and I don’t like the second but also am happy to talk to people who hold those opinions if they’re looking for a safe place to discuss and debate them.
    
    Now that’s a couple ways of interpretting what the original commenter said, both of which I think are justifiable although I lean obviously to one way. Does that read like I’m simplifying the problem reductively? Does that read like I’m asking people to throw stones at the commenter? Has anything I’ve written even read like I’m forming a group of like minded people, virtue signaling, and running the other person out of town?
    
    I would say no, obviously not. You seem frustrated at online discourse, or maybe you’re just pro-these-actions and can’t separate them from this conversation. You wanna talk about the actions of the EU, that’s cool. You wanna talk about one random person’s perspective as to why the original commenter got downvotes, that’s cool. You want to acuse me of being simple, when I’m clearly responding to what the person wrote and only what the person wrote (both the first commenter and the person I responded to), that seems like a waste of time. It’s surely not adding anything to the conversation for me at least.
    
    But here we are.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments