• 2 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 20 days ago
cake
Cake day: May 5th, 2026

help-circle

  • I would still say no.

    You should have a right to privacy. And there are still ways in which law enforcement could investigate and track perpetrators of crimes and implement “justice,” though as is obvious in America now, justice isn’t ethical either, and what can be labelled as crime, or even terrorism (take a look at NSPM-7.

    Even if 100% ethical, I still have my right to privacy. Should I commit a crime, then I would forfeit that right. It would be up to law enforcement to enforce that law. By penalizing a VPN service, which is a leg service, it removes the right of privacy from everyone, not just myself whom they supposedly had evidence of a crime in this hypothetical. Otherwise, they targeted a VPN for their claims alone.

    Regardless of that, taking down said VPN will not stop crimes from occurring. Users will simply use other VPN services as more exist.

    Given the recent legislation to try an ban VPNs, this could mean that VPNs could be forced to track the traffic of users, which kind of defeats the point of them. Even in this 100% ethical government scenario.

    Basically, law enforcement has the tools to individually track perpetrators already, if they were interested. In real life, they’re interested in protecting capital. Individual investigations are expensive. But working with corporations and governments to collect data and track all users? Well then it becomes much cheaper to press a button and arrest someone for whatever “crime” you define.

    I think the real questions at hand are:

    Is it ethical to remove the right of privacy of everyone in the name of “justice?” (No)

    Are the laws by which certain actions are labelled as crime ethical? (Also, no.)

    We believe that justice should be ethical. When capital and authiritarians rule, justice has no ethics.

















  • I don’t disagree. I don’t care for the Iranian government and never proclaimed as such. Though, I think that’s also part of it as well as that we look at the Iranian government and conflate it with the people themselves. Under that understanding, even as we fight against our fascist regime in America, we, individually, are also responsible for the decisions our leaders make.

    Which, at some level, is true. We could have used our 2nd amendment a while ago, for example, but we’re still here, just working and paying our taxes to bomb the world.

    Also, I think that’s also exactly the point. We all have to be manually approved as a measure against bots. A federated, decentralized platform allows freedom of dissenting ideas to be discussed. Hence why I even asked the question as I was looking for some genuine thoughts around all that complexity (AI usage, good or bad, Iran, good or bad, working class message of peace from both, good or bad?) Though, seems like people are more focused on the Iranian government more so than the message being spoken or the method by which it was created. Broken clock and all that 😅. Both things can be true at the same time. But given the downvotes maybe I didn’t communicate that well.

    If we can disagree with our government and want better, why can’t others? No matter where you are in the world, we are human beings. We should not let those in power define us.