We need to reverse this. We need to make sure we only need to win once, to permenantly secure this. This is why constitutions exist. Instead of passively waiting, we need to go on the attack, and strike the final blow, before they do. We need these rights secured by constitutions, so they can’t be so easily taken away from us. I read that for instance Germany has article 10 of their Grundgesetz, which, (in this translation), states:

“(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.”

But sadly it’s being followed by:

“(2) Restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed of the restriction and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by a review of the case by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature.”

I imagine more countries might have these half-ass measures. Laws that read '(1) X is a fundemental right and nobody can ever take it away from you. (2) except ofcourse goverment, who can do as they please’. I suppose ultimately it requires legislators to give up power, and obviously that only happens under external pressure. Currently people don’t seem to care enough to put pressure on these types of issues. I mean, if people cared, they’d move to private services, and if they did then this would be less of an issue. It’s an issue precisely because people don’t seem to care nor understand the relevance of privacy.

So we need people to care temporarily, and then use that momentum to get our constitutions changed. And for that we probably need a scandal, one that’s completely outrageous, while still being quite easy to understand. I don’t know if or how this would come to pass, but I wouldn’t say it’s completely unthinkable. Perhaps we also need some books or films, like a modern 1984, some AI-dystopia. that atleast gets cultural elites, but preferably larger parts of society, to worry about their freedom. In a sense doing the groundwork, and then when minds are ready, we need to strike.

Stay vigilant indeed.

13.2% of the inhabitants of Luxembourg are Portuguese.

TIL KZ stands for Konzentrationslager (concentration camp).

Thinks people shouldn’t take medical advice from him,

…proceeds to give medical advice to people.

taxes or the guillotine. decapitilization or decapitation.

I prefer the first option, but ultimately the outcome is what’s important.

©

because of copyright?

Why can’t people just be normal. I am being my normal self, but other people seem different. Bastard freaks.

if only I knu how to renu my cells :(

Studying the Child marriage in the United States Wikipedia page. Looking at the map legenda that says ‘red = 0’, thinking ‘surely that means it’s forbidden, right? right??’ What the fuck.

Old enough to marry but too young to divorce. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard this week.

I just learned the term ‘ReTruths’. It’s such doublespeak

That’s why a universal basic income is a good idea. I’ve also always been very interested in anarchism. I think what it does well is that it gets people to do exactly what they think is right, it creates a society where people are motivated by their inner workings not by external power structures, and it makes sense to think there’s some untapped potential there. But I also tend to think Anarchism might be a bit naive, or far from where we are as a society right now. But UBI seems more realistic and might get us a bit further down this path than we are now. People could still work for a loan, full time or part time or whatever they want, but it becomes more realistic for people to choose to do voluntary work.

Exactly, that’s why we need to convince governments to pay for FOSS.

True, but Mr. Rogers would probably know how to do it properly so that you’d be at ease.

Isn’t it amazing that ‘not lying to children’ somehow seems kinda radical?

Ye but like I said, here in the Netherlands, and I think across Europe people will automatically think of jews being sent to extermination camps like Auschwitz. Look at the dutch wikipedia page on deportation, the second paragraph explains that the term could technically be used to for instance describe migrants who are sent back to their country of origin, but it isn’t used to describe that, because the term is so very much associated with the Holocaust, and so a different term (uitzetten) is used to avoid this intensely negative association. So you’ll understand my confusion when the term directly linked to the worst crime against humanity is here suggested to have a positive connotation. And I don’t think the Jews had much of a chance to argue against their deportations.

Who will be the new Marinus van der Lubbe?

What maybe confuses me is that the word deportation to me already has an intensely negative ring to it. Here in the Netherlands, if we hear the word deportation, I think most people instantly think of the Nazi-regime. Therefor I see no need for any other word to show how it’s actually awful. But perhaps the situation in the US is different when it comes to what associations are stuck to these words.

Maybe it’s also something else, but it is nonetheless deportation too, and the definition she gives is not correct. Words have meanings and you can’t just pretend a different one to make a point.

School shootings kill some, but smartphones destroy entire generations.