Arguably yes. By preventing entire classes of attack real users are never exposed to certain risks in the first place. If it were possible it would be abused at some rate (even if that rate were low).
It's not that trusted computing is inherently bad. I actually think it's a very good thing. The problem is that the manufacturer maintains control of the keys when they sell you a device.
Imagine selling someone a house that had smart locks but not turning over control of the locks to the new "owner". And every time the "owner" wants to add a new guest to the lock you insist on "reviewing" the guest before agreeing to add him. You insist that this is important for "security" because otherwise the "owner" might throw a party or invite a drug dealer over or something else you don't approve of. But don't worry, you are protecting the "owner" from malicious third parties hiding in plain sight. You run thorough background checks on all applicants after all!
They used Windows XP when it was a security nightmare and many used it long after EOL. I just talked to someone whose had 4 bank cards compromised in as many months who is almost certainly doing something wrong.
They hold both that people whose citizenship depends on birthright citizenship are not in fact citizens and that naturalized citizens can be denaturalized either for disloyalty or based on some sham pretext. They also see people getting benefits as leaches worthy of targeting.
Also naturalized and birthright citizens are far more likely than others to associate or live with others of less legal status.
Naturalized and birthright citizens quality for benefits and they and their families are at risk.
If they are allowed to detain and deport without any due process as they have asserted anyone not white is at risk.
The DHS official social media presence shared a picture of an island paradise with the caption America after 100 million deportations.
This is the number of non-whites not the number of immigrants in even the most ridiculous estimates.
Perhaps start by defunding any projects by institutions that insist on protecting fraudsters especially in the soft sciences. There is a lot of valuable hard science that IS real and has better standards.
What specific pathologies characteristic of the materially prosperous first world? People almost universally behave better in a functional system with enough housing food education and so forth. Morality is and will always remain important but systems matter a LOT. For instance we've experienced less murder since we stopped mass lead poisoning our entire population.
It's a paradox. We know for an absolute fact that changing the underlying system matters massively but we must continue to acknowledge the individual choice because the system of consequences and as importantly the system of shame keeps those who wouldn't act morally in check. So we punish the person who was probably lead poisoned the same as any other despite knowing that we are partially at fault for the system that lead to their misbehavior.
One thing that stands in the way of other people choosing the wrong path is the perception of consequences. Minimal consequences by milquetoast critics who just want to understand is a bug not a feature.
People are on average both bad and stupid and function without a framework of consequences and expectations where they expect to suffer and feel shame. They didn't make a mistake they stood in front of all their professional colleagues and published effectively what they knew were lies. The fact that they can publish lies and others are happy to build on lies ind indicates the whole community is a cancer. The fact that the community rejects calls for correction indicates its metastasized and at least as far as that particular community the patient is dead and there is nothing left to save.
They ought to be properly ridiculed and anyone who has published obvious trash should have any public funds yanked and become ineligible for life. People should watch their public ruin and consider their own future action.
If you consider the sheer amount of science that has turned out to be outright fraud in the last decade this is a crisis.
I don't think rock and roll taught fundamentally bad values nor did playing mario or doom.
Social media is by contrast fairly designed to spread 17 different kinds of poisonous stupidity. So you liked $conspiracy_theory... how about 10 more 3 of which suggest genocide!
Disney is worse in ways, subtle sexual imagery in their cartoons and interpersonal drama in their teen shows. Kids are learning these patterns before they even get to social media
Social media helps spread poisonous stupidity that promotes genocide and Disney is "worse in ways" because teen characters all aren't Dora the explorer and kiss boys and have drama? Is that actually what you meant to say?
In the US parents can mostly give their kids porn, guns, and alcohol at home. Wherein the drug isn't itself illegal you are for practical purposes also able to give your kids drugs.
Being shown to cause harm is also a meaninglessly low standard. Bathtubs, pools, and bikes can cause harm. You would need to show an actually useful standard. Lets propose will cause an unacceptable level of harmn that cannot be mitigated by less restrictive means.
I don't buy the argument that you are unacceptably harmed because you aren't capable of denying your kid social media nor do I buy the idea that social media couldn't be regulated to be less shitty and harmful.
Exposing children to pornography is illegal federally and in all states, treated as distribution of obscene material or child exploitation with no parental exemptions. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2252) prohibits such exhibition to minors under 18, carrying severe penalties like imprisonment.
So precedent exists. Social media is at least as harmful as porn.
Has anyone ever in life been prosecuted for allowing their teen watch boobs on the internet? I mean if you at any time prior to 18 have a computer in their room you absolutely know that you basically provided an adult portal.
Before the internet as I kid I rewired our houses cable wiring and stole my dad's dirty magazines. Pretty sure damn near everyone saw adult material prior to 18.
Number of immigrants has been slowly increasing or steady for decades. It's a fantasy that it's a crisis or that there is a risk of tens of millions flooding our shores. We mostly drastically benefit from products downstream from cheap labor while tacitly allowing those who don't get in trouble so we can continue to benefit from this.
We could have "solved" immigration decades ago with enough punative treatment of employers but didn't want to.
If you want to actually stop it you could just ramp up punative treatment of employers over the next 5 years while keeping other policies at Obama or Bush era.
Half the undocumented without us family members would self deport gradually whilst jobs dried up. Offer amnesty to productive people with family roots and no criminal record and you end up with a microscopic undocumented pop.
Meanwhile DSHS is tweeting a pic of an island paradise with the caption America after 100M deportations. There are around 12M undocumented but about 100M non-whites if you have trouble interpreting their meaning or intention.
reply