- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1648 Hour
- Reading permission
Jaaja Post time: 2018-8-16 18:04
Hacking is normally stealing - stealing or blackmailing money, or stealing other people's identity ...
And who says you need to stop liars? If I post a lie in this thread, you only need to silence me in this thread, and you'd do that by presenting facts that prove me be lying. Of course someone may be in denial of your facts, and keep going. But it is not your duty to stop them - your good work is done.
What if the lie keeps spreading if it is not stopped? An evil tongue can cause fire and ruin the forest faster than the axe. My "good work" is useless in that case. The internet has to be guarded and regulated just like the real world.
Lying is a completely different act, and if we are talking about lies (in internet or elsewhere), I maintain that hacking is not relevant topic for this thread.
A borderline case would be if someone hacks into computer of Trump, or you or me, and post false commentary on internet in our name. If it can be established that it was this hacker who was spreading the lines (rather than Trump or you or me), then he could be guilty of both hacking and lying
I am focusing my discussion from a whole perspective on how the internet should be regulated or else the harm from that could affect people in the sphere of business, society, and politics. Why is the example of hacking not relevant?
But as I have tried to explain earlier, problem is rarely about facts vs. lies anyway. It is about facts vs. opinions. For some things there simply are no facts.
I agree that for some things, it is a matter of preference. However, things are not always as simple as that. Lies can be disguised as opinions. This should not be downplayed. If things are that simple, the world would be a better place.
Here is another case of facts vs. lies vs. opinions: China recently introduced laws that prohibit criticizing heros of the revolution. Comments from in and out of China was that it hinders historical research and discussion. It essentially prohibits critical commentary, even when such would be based on facts.
This is a culture thing. In China, and for most Chinese, symbolism is a very important aspect of one's life. The heroes of revolution made a lot of contribution (with some sacrificing their lives) and allowed China to come up whole, in spite of being totally devastated and militarily weakened. If you have the time read up their stories. Making fun of them is equivalent to denigrating their contribution and ignoring the past. They represent the never-say-die attitude and the love of motherland.
Snowden didn't hack into anything. He had valid access to classified information, and his (alleged) crime was to publish that information. Nothing to do with either hacking or lying.
Is it my English or you are trying to evade my true meaning? What I meant was that the NSA spied on other countries for such a long time and would have gone unnoticed if not for Snowden who exposed this to the public. NSA is the hacker, not Snowden. This is public knowledge. The US wanted to try Snowden for treason which shows the admission of guilt by NSA. I am sure you are aware of that.