It’s more descriptive than “Woman died after living made her delusional”.
It’s less descriptive than “Woman died after a vitamin B12 deficiency made her delusional”
I’m pretty sure it’s intentionally vague and misleading to trigger engagement around a divisive topic.
I wonder if there is a term for that.
It makes sense. Protocols are defined before services can be implemented on them.
What the article is say is, rather than trusting a service provider to protect your privacy, stick to using services you control, on open protocols that can communicate with external service providers.
If everyone does this, the government needs to knock on a lot more doors to force compliance. And if a node on the protocol chooses to shut down instead of complying, the service as a whole isn’t disrupted. Just the users on that node. And they can control migration to a different node.
I think the journalists themselves are stuck in the same place a lot of us. Working for someone they can’t support morally, because they owe money and need a paycheque, and every place they could move to will likely have the same problem.
The issue is with the owners.
Any idea that if actualized into government policy, that would lead to increased rates of harm for people, is in fact a harmful idea.
However, if the work is political, religious, or economic, and you can’t separate that, this is completely understandable on some levels
The key issue I had with this is, is sometimes the work itself is none of those things, but the artist is.
Specifically in the case for a certain magical school and the author of said work.
If the work is being commoditized to promote harmful ideas, then no matter how good the art is, it should be shunned.
If the art is good but the artist used to have problematic views or opinions, then that’s different.
‘You know our Department of Defence? Yeah, its the Department of War now.’
‘What are we doing in Iran? We promise; It’s not a war, it’s self-defence.’
🙄