Re:U.S. indicts two men for running a $20M YouTube content I...
by ratww on Friday December 03, 2021 @12:57PM
(#29432938)
Once again I ask you: where did I say it makes them ineligible? Why can't I criticise the behaviour?
Re:U.S. indicts two men for running a $20M YouTube content I...
by AnthonyMouse on Friday December 03, 2021 @12:59PM
(#29432968)
You're criticizing the wrong thing. Address the specific instance when they get it wrong, not the general idea of being concerned about edge cases, which in many cases actually are highly problematic.
Re:U.S. indicts two men for running a $20M YouTube content I...
by ratww on Friday December 03, 2021 @01:07PM
(#29433056)
Once again you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that worrying about edge cases is wrong, nor that discussing them was. The sport of claiming that they aren't handled when they actually are, however, is a pet peeve of mine. I hope you see the irony of claiming that someone having a pet peeve is incompatible with democracy.
I don't think you can separate them so easily. People make mistakes. They make assumptions. They lack information. That shouldn't make them ineligible to participate in the debate, because the debate is the process by which those mistakes and assumptions get corrected and people arrive at a consensus. If they just shut up, they'll still be wrong, but then no one will correct them, and no one with the same wrong assumptions will see the correction.
And they're not always wrong.