For example, there's a very persistent claim about Chinese culture being so morally corrupt that Chinese people are known to intentionally kill pedestrians after hitting them with a car in order to avoid lawsuits[1]. In reality this was distorted from a sensationalized report of a single video of a car running over a pedestrian again, and then extrapolated as a fundamental truth about a culture of 1.4 billion people, cementing the perceived inferiority of Chinese culture to Western culture in the minds of readers. I could name literally dozens of cases of stories like these about CJK culture/governance that went viral in mainstream Western media.

I feel very strongly that this story fits into that genre. I do apologise for how strongly I reacted, but it's this kind of slander that really pushes my buttons and makes it hard for me to moderate my tone in the heat of the moment.

[1] "In China, drivers would rather kill you than injure you" -- Business Insider https://www.businessinsider.com/in-china-drivers-would-rathe...

> thus not immune from the types of bugs that stem from that lineage

They never claimed that FreeBSD didn't have vulnerabilities. I honestly have no idea why grandparent decided to bring up their comment when it exactly validates what the person they were criticising says. GP admits the response to the vulnerability was well-coordinated. The response to security vulnerabilities was the exact, and only, subject of the post they're calling out.

If it's not clear, the point of calling fascism what it is, is not to convince the people who are being called fascists of anything. They cannot be convinced of anything, because they are fascists. The point is to highlight, to people who are already amenable but complacent, that a greater sense of urgency is needed. Our societies are currently sleepwalking into a dystopia that will make the Gestapo and KGB look like child's play. There will be no revolution, no liberation, no resistance if our governments are allowed the degree of control they're seeking. Once complete surveillance is established, communications are controlled, and freedom ceases to exist, it will be lost permanently this time.

Politicians lie to voters to get them to accept things they would otherwise not accept. That was literally central to the entire comment you were replying to. "But the children" and "But national security" are essentially a free pass to enact any legislation a dishonest politician wants with support from a population that cannot stay fully informed on the nuances of the incredibly complex modern world.

> If you could link a piece of legislation that has little support among voters, but was passed due to corporate money, I would be interested.

I feel like I could gesture broadly at everything. As noted, people will support something when lied to, but even without public support it's obvious that this happens. Off the top of my head, Trump's corporate tax cuts in 2017 might be one of the most clearcut examples of something that benefitted corporations over individuals, was lobbied for by corporations, and was high profile enough to have public polling while being so blatantly unjustifiable that said polling demonstrated the public was clearly against it.

Without the population on your side, it's some insignificant minority's words vs. corporation's power determining where the lines get drawn by regulators. The people can put a leash on politicians who cave too hard to corporations by voting them out of office, but if they don't even understand the issue and have been conditioned to accept age verification, that will never happen.

> One of the large issues though is that the reference implementation relies on Google Play Integrity for device attestation (+ the iOS counterpart)

I am confused as to why you suggest my view is US-centric, and then go on to acknowledge that the EU is currently in the midst of rolling out regulation that de facto enshrines the Google+Apple duopoly in law. The EU bureacracy seems to be just as captured by corporate interests as the US. At times, they put up a token protest against Apple/Google, but generally only insofar as to promote competing European corporate interests where applicable. The EU would certainly prefer to serve European corporations over American ones, but the European people don't seem to factor into the equation at any point.

Obviously, not all solutions have to be 100% solutions to problems. Indeed such solutions very rarely exist in the real world. But they do need to be less of a problem than the original problem, and the more invasive they are, the more you'd better expect they solve a serious problem as comprehensively as possible rather than barely addressing a trivial problem.

Quoting an older post...

> In a benevolent dictatorship, sure, go for a zero-knowledge proof verification as your solution. In the reality of democracy, where politicians are corporate puppets who cloak surveillance laws in "think of the children" to rally support from the masses, we need to convince people to see through the lie and reject the proposals outright while reassuring them that they can protect the children themselves via parental controls. You will never be able to sufficiently inform 50.1% of the population of any country of what zero-knowledge proof even means, let alone convince them to support age verification laws but strictly conditional on ZKP requirements. That level of nuance is far too much to ask of millions of people who are not technically-informed, and idealism needs to give way to pragmatism if we wish to avoid the worst-case scenario.

They don't ask for it, they take it when you're busy or sleeping. Teens certainly weren't asking for Dad's VHS tapes or magazines when I was a kid. I suppose this problem is solveable, too, though. Mandatory biometric locks on every device capable of accessing the internet, why not?

> That's not the right quote for this case.

It is. These people are fascists. Their goal is to create a society where the government has a permanent record of everything every person is doing, monitored 24/7 so nobody can defy it. The point about tolerating intolerance is that by abiding such people, you allow them to create an intolerant society, thus it is prudent even in a tolerant society to be intolerant specifically towards those whose goal is intolerance.

Obviously, it's not about the children. It was never about the children. If I had my way every one of these people would be taken to a gulag, because they are evil, have evil intentions, and blatantly lie to further their evil goals. I am tired of the intolerant being tolerated, and by allowing this to fester we are headed for a much worse totalitarian dystopia.

[1] Although some data brokers do sell it directly to burglars too. All the burglar has to do is say "I'm a door-to-door salesman, will you sell me the information?". Your neighbor can't be bothered to do any kind of real verification of whether they're a salesman or a burglar.

For the same reason I expect my neighbor not to kill me or steal my shit. We live in a society, with societal expectations around behaviour. I, personally, would prefer not to live in an uncivilized jungle where the only rule is "do whatever you can get away with".

An investigative body, the same kind that determines the who, the why, and the how when an airliner crashes or a bridge collapses. Obviously a lot of work needs to be done to get from point A to point B, and it won't happen overnight, but software development is currently a deeply unserious profession and at some point a genuine software engineering practice needs to be developed.

I am, perhaps naively, slightly hopeful that the LLM bullshit plaguing our industry will be the gust of wind needed for the house of cards to collapse and governments to realise that allowing the entire world to be vibe coded is not sustainable.