this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
371 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

60082 readers
3839 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They're absolutely in the same category.

If the government can ban things in the name of "national security" based on little more than "it's potentially dangerous," what's stopping them from labeling any platform that doesn't censor information the way they want as "dangerous" and subject to bans?

The government doesn't get to choose what I run on my computers, nor do they get to choose what books I read, what movies I watch, etc.

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, the fallacious slippery slope again. How creative and intellectual!

If there's anything it applies to, it's government overreach. Look at how the TSA expanded its violation of personal privacy in the name of "security," or how the NSA and FBI have expanded surveillance of individuals. Look at the militarization of police.

Once you let the government ban a handful of apps, it's going to use that new power more frequently. That's what bureaucrats do, when you give them a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

There are so many examples of government getting its foot in the door and steadily expanding its control. That's what it does.