Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Ye Olde Guv'ment Censorship
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 77671858" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>If anyone had a definitive answer to that, that was both consistent and prudent, they'd have the answer to the $10 million dollar question lol</p><p></p><p>The notion that "some secrets have to be kept from the people, because the people could expose it to our enemies" is prudent, but is not consistent within pure representative republic/democracy. (in that, we're paying for something, but not allowed to know the details of what we're paying for)</p><p></p><p>The notion of "if we're paying taxes for our military and homeland defense and intelligence agencies, we have a right to know what they're doing" is consistent, but not prudent, in that we all know some blabbermouth would post it on facebook and a North Korean or Russian sockpuppet account would love to get their hands on that information in ways that would make us less safe.</p><p></p><p>It's actually a dynamic I've pondered quite a bit and still don't have a great answer for.</p><p></p><p>On one hand, I understand why the government would want and need to keep secrets in the name of national security, you can't just let everyone and their brother know what our missile defense systems entail, that would last all of 10 minutes before it ended up on someone's social media feed.</p><p>On the other hand, a government that has the power to take our money and use it for covert stuff with no obligation to tell us, is a government powerful enough to do secret stuff against us as well. (see: NSA wiretapping and the Patriot Act)</p><p></p><p>It's a balancing act, and quite a tough one at that...</p><p></p><p>With regards to social media companies, I've long said that the moment they got called up to senate hearings and coerced into setting ToS provisions that favored what the "in-power" administration wanted and subsequently complied with the indirect demands, they became "State Actors" (and should be held to the stipulations in the State Action doctrine of the constitution). But that still leaves us struggling with the broader question you asked.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 77671858, member: 123415"] If anyone had a definitive answer to that, that was both consistent and prudent, they'd have the answer to the $10 million dollar question lol The notion that "some secrets have to be kept from the people, because the people could expose it to our enemies" is prudent, but is not consistent within pure representative republic/democracy. (in that, we're paying for something, but not allowed to know the details of what we're paying for) The notion of "if we're paying taxes for our military and homeland defense and intelligence agencies, we have a right to know what they're doing" is consistent, but not prudent, in that we all know some blabbermouth would post it on facebook and a North Korean or Russian sockpuppet account would love to get their hands on that information in ways that would make us less safe. It's actually a dynamic I've pondered quite a bit and still don't have a great answer for. On one hand, I understand why the government would want and need to keep secrets in the name of national security, you can't just let everyone and their brother know what our missile defense systems entail, that would last all of 10 minutes before it ended up on someone's social media feed. On the other hand, a government that has the power to take our money and use it for covert stuff with no obligation to tell us, is a government powerful enough to do secret stuff against us as well. (see: NSA wiretapping and the Patriot Act) It's a balancing act, and quite a tough one at that... With regards to social media companies, I've long said that the moment they got called up to senate hearings and coerced into setting ToS provisions that favored what the "in-power" administration wanted and subsequently complied with the indirect demands, they became "State Actors" (and should be held to the stipulations in the State Action doctrine of the constitution). But that still leaves us struggling with the broader question you asked. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Ye Olde Guv'ment Censorship
Top
Bottom