There are unloaded terms for these activities: census or polling statistics.
They are opt-in and don't infringe on privacy, and only the most hardline small government libertarians usually object to them.
People are generally uncomfortable with widespread/automatic surveillance because it's
opaque; inspecting the methodology and ethics thereof can often only done post-hoc, often with leaks and after non-trivial social costs are already borne
surprisingly effective and perceptive; see how much information can be gleaned from metadata with phone calls, or IP connections that are encrypted with TLS, but not routed over TOR
susceptible to abuse; you want to shift the framing to gloss over this, but is that logically honest? is it reasonable to assume organizations have individuals best interests in mind? it is always tempting to label dissidents as terrorists and crack down on them with the full force of the state, but does that lead to a productive and free society? would you rather live in China, where discussions about the CCP are mired in doublespeak/downright avoided, or the US, which has pretty robust protections of speech that don't have clear National Security dynamics (see Snowden and Assange as obvious counterexamples)?
I think it's also important to understand the unease around privacy is not necessarily utilitarian and logically consistent: Alexa listening in on your sex life and giving you sex toys recommendations based on orgasm frequency is certainly useful, but would make almost anyone I know very uncomfortable.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There are unloaded terms for these activities: census or polling statistics.
They are opt-in and don't infringe on privacy, and only the most hardline small government libertarians usually object to them.
People are generally uncomfortable with widespread/automatic surveillance because it's
opaque; inspecting the methodology and ethics thereof can often only done post-hoc, often with leaks and after non-trivial social costs are already borne
surprisingly effective and perceptive; see how much information can be gleaned from metadata with phone calls, or IP connections that are encrypted with TLS, but not routed over TOR
susceptible to abuse; you want to shift the framing to gloss over this, but is that logically honest? is it reasonable to assume organizations have individuals best interests in mind? it is always tempting to label dissidents as terrorists and crack down on them with the full force of the state, but does that lead to a productive and free society? would you rather live in China, where discussions about the CCP are mired in doublespeak/downright avoided, or the US, which has pretty robust protections of speech that don't have clear National Security dynamics (see Snowden and Assange as obvious counterexamples)?
I think it's also important to understand the unease around privacy is not necessarily utilitarian and logically consistent: Alexa listening in on your sex life and giving you sex toys recommendations based on orgasm frequency is certainly useful, but would make almost anyone I know very uncomfortable.
More options
Context Copy link