• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Let’s open the can of worms. Right here right now.

    If the goal of a law is to keep people safe should we pass laws that do that or pass laws that don’t? Answer the question.

    If goal is X should we try to get X or try to get Y?

    Really really simple and you should manage it. Come on brought-to-you-buy-Meta, simple question I am sure you can answer it.

    • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ah, a red herring.

      According to you, there should be only one law that protects people and protects them fully. If the law is specific to a sector, it’s bad because saving people’s data doesn’t give them healthcare. And if it doesn’t protect people in other sectors (foreign vs domestic) then it can’t possibly be a good move.

      It’s an all-or-nothing mentality that is extremely idealistic to the point of ignoring incremental progress, and will make it so that no law is ever good or enough.

      Stopping the bleeding of data harvesting to China is good. If you want other change alongside it, hold your elected officials to it.

      There’s really no point in continuing a discussion with such an idealistic purist, as no law can be good enough.