Over the last century, the Land of the Free has slowly transformed into a land governed by endless laws, largely by cracking down on vices instead of actual crimes, creating a society that would render us all criminals if our behavior were constantly observed. Meanwhile, the state has steadily expanded its use of mass surveillance, largely under the pretext of fighting “terror.”
This is a toxic mixture.
They cited their sources and included direct quotations from the bill. Are you saying any of their claims about what the bill says are untrue? It’s good to have a healthy amount of skepticism, especially for groups with known biases, but what’s your point in calling this out here?
Over the last century, the Land of the Free has slowly transformed into a land governed by endless laws, largely by cracking down on vices instead of actual crimes, creating a society that would render us all criminals if our behavior were constantly observed.
Just the framing of the first line is like something out of an Ayn Rand hallucination. When I see something that heavily tilted the first thing I look for is WHO is writing it and WHY would they.
The part that got me is when they quoted the text of the bill and then linked to the bill.
But yes, the constant “slamming” of democrats is pretty biased. I can’t say I wholly disagree with that first paragraph, but anything that uses “land of the free” unironically usually has an angle.
Especially anyone who believes that individuals are less free now than they were historically in the United States. Only the ignorant or biased make that claim.
Yes one of their quotes is the opinion section of the bill at the beginning that has no effect on the law.
And “kill switch” is trying to get you to think that the police get a button to turn off the car, which is the one thing it doesn’t do. It wants the thing most current luxury cars have where the car detects the driver falling asleep, but tune it to also detect drunk driving.
That’s also bad if you just want a manual car that isn’t full of DRM, but FEE is trying to tell idiots that BRANDON is giving the BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT a SWITCH to KILL YOUR FAMILY just like in your favorite CAMERON DIAZ movie THE BOX (2009).
They cited their sources and included direct quotations from the bill.
And the direct quotations from the bill were less-than-damning without several paragraphs of editorial leading the reader down the garden path. This is on the same level as the ‘death panel’ hysteria from about 10 years ago.
At some point in the future cars will have to incl. some form of assistance technology as a standard feature, big whoop. It doesn’t say it has to be enabled by default, or always turned on, and with all the assists and autonomous driving features already being added to cars, it’s very likely most manufacturers will end up meeting the requirements of the bill without even trying.
…
If
driver behaving erratic and interfering with safe function of car
Then
pull safely to the side of the road and temporarily disable ignition
…
BuT mUh FrEeDoMs. Something something ‘right to travel’ = right to operate a car whilst intoxicated (sounds like some SovCit bullshit), as opposed to right to a functional public transport system or something…
They cited their sources and included direct quotations from the bill. Are you saying any of their claims about what the bill says are untrue? It’s good to have a healthy amount of skepticism, especially for groups with known biases, but what’s your point in calling this out here?
Just the framing of the first line is like something out of an Ayn Rand hallucination. When I see something that heavily tilted the first thing I look for is WHO is writing it and WHY would they.
I mean, even if I think libertarians are overall not very smart, I do think their stance on vice laws is the right one.
The part that got me is when they quoted the text of the bill and then linked to the bill.
But yes, the constant “slamming” of democrats is pretty biased. I can’t say I wholly disagree with that first paragraph, but anything that uses “land of the free” unironically usually has an angle.
Especially anyone who believes that individuals are less free now than they were historically in the United States. Only the ignorant or biased make that claim.
Ayn Rand Institute is way nuttier.
Yes one of their quotes is the opinion section of the bill at the beginning that has no effect on the law.
And “kill switch” is trying to get you to think that the police get a button to turn off the car, which is the one thing it doesn’t do. It wants the thing most current luxury cars have where the car detects the driver falling asleep, but tune it to also detect drunk driving.
That’s also bad if you just want a manual car that isn’t full of DRM, but FEE is trying to tell idiots that BRANDON is giving the BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT a SWITCH to KILL YOUR FAMILY just like in your favorite CAMERON DIAZ movie THE BOX (2009).
And the direct quotations from the bill were less-than-damning without several paragraphs of editorial leading the reader down the garden path. This is on the same level as the ‘death panel’ hysteria from about 10 years ago.
At some point in the future cars will have to incl. some form of assistance technology as a standard feature, big whoop. It doesn’t say it has to be enabled by default, or always turned on, and with all the assists and autonomous driving features already being added to cars, it’s very likely most manufacturers will end up meeting the requirements of the bill without even trying.
…
If
driver behaving erratic and interfering with safe function of car
Then
pull safely to the side of the road and temporarily disable ignition
…
BuT mUh FrEeDoMs. Something something ‘right to travel’ = right to operate a car whilst intoxicated (sounds like some SovCit bullshit), as opposed to right to a functional public transport system or something…