this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
386 points (94.5% liked)
Technology
58108 readers
3935 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why wouldn't they pass that in California? California loves monitoring people. Right now it's mostly with cars (license plate readers, and now digital license plates with tracking built-in), but I really don't see why they wouldn't do this. They're already starting with social media, I would assume porn would come soon after. Yeah, they have something akin to the GDPR, but that's not at odds with tracking people, it's just a nod so people don't notice what they're up to...
Screw California, they don't care about privacy at all.
Smells like a slippery slope fallacy to me
Yours sounds like a fallacy fallacy. Pointing out a logical error doesn't mean the conclusion is inherently wrong.
No, it's a slippery slope argument. It's a fallacy if and only if the claim in unlikely to follow from the initial argument.
I'm demonstrating two examples of privacy-violating policy from California, where the excuse is to help in policing. If they can tie in policing to porn/social media, I think they'll do it. So yes, it's a slippery slope argument, but I don't think it's a fallacy.