Well, I certainly agree with that, we can improve our electoral system a bit. There are limits on this of course, given there are mathematical proofs that there can't be any perfect voting scheme (with more than 2 parties).
Still though, 40% of voters being bigots is already an incredibly massive problem, trying to save minorities by changing the voting system, reducing provincial powers (removing the notwithstanding clause), or otherwise carefully balancing things, it all seems like a bandaid at this point.
I'm not convinced that ZKP requires an identification number or any such deanonymizing data. If there is a ZKP protocol that implements this that is just one possible implementation.
I'm not entirely convinced the problem is the notwithstanding clause. I think the problem is that anti-trans fearmongering has found a political foothold. I mean honestly at the end of the day, you need a certain threshold of the population to support these kinds of policies for them to get enacted. And once too many people are bigots in a democracy, nothing can protect minorities. Bigotry is the thing we should have prevented.
None of these are good arguments against introducing a ban. Worst argument of all is that "we shouldn't ban it for 15 year olds because that wouldn't protect 16 year olds." Seriously? Is that intentional rage bait?
I think it's more than clear by now that algorithmic feeds are hazardous, at least without significant effort in research and safeguards which nobody seems to be doing. So yeah, I'd say: definitely ban algorithmic feeds for teenagers. Hell, ban them for everyone if you must.
Gating should be done either by ZKP (zero-knowledge proofs, which don't expose any information to any party other than "I'm at least x years old" -- look this up if this is a new concept to you) or device-side by standardizing and streamlining child safety locks.
I saw that yes. Let me put it to you this way -- Either the law should be amended so that what he did be illegal, or we should leave the former officer alone.
We don't know what he did, and some forms of abuse can't really be made illegal. Perhaps he was merely unfaithful, or called her a bitch when they fought -- should these really be crimes?
(and you didn't answer my question -- what power imbalance?)
Well the activist was himself to be precise, not other people he brought in (unless I missed something in the article).
I saw that it was based on two things that occurred in the classroom:
he mentioned he was on hunger strike (but didn't say for what), and that it might affect the quality of today's lecture;
on a different day, he connected the subject matter of the class with world events, explaining how similar technology was being used by the IDF. He prefaced this 4 minute section of the lecture by saying students [sensitive to the politics] could leave.
Regardless of what you think about the politics, these both seem like reasonable things for a professor to do on the surface of it. 1 isn't even political at all, and 2 because there's a subject matter connection. I learned about ethics-informing anecdotes in my CS class.
I suspect religious people would be irritated if their texts were labelled as hate speech. It would be politically a bad move if this turned out to be the case. That's why it's a "bad thing."
Well, I certainly agree with that, we can improve our electoral system a bit. There are limits on this of course, given there are mathematical proofs that there can't be any perfect voting scheme (with more than 2 parties).
Still though, 40% of voters being bigots is already an incredibly massive problem, trying to save minorities by changing the voting system, reducing provincial powers (removing the notwithstanding clause), or otherwise carefully balancing things, it all seems like a bandaid at this point.