@ireneista @smallcircles want to highlight in your response here how you identified a specifically moral right, which is a helpful and important progression from the terminology of unprefixed rights invoked in OP. without a framework to reconcile fundamental rights, two people may claim to have mutually contradictory "rights", which is the classic paradox that results from a framework of purely negative liberties (freedom from vs freedom to). rights frameworks (and legal systems more generally) seek to reconcile facial contradictions with a series of structured compromises between parties. if a government were legislating the fediverse, these would be decided as a matter of law
Post
Replies:
5
Boosts:
10
@ireneista @smallcircles i'm replying not to educate irenes (who taught me much of the above in the first place) but to identify to onlookers that your invocation of the moral right here is more subtle and powerful than it may appear at first because it speaks to that very tension inherent in a system of rights we would like to create together. it's a very radical thing to propose a system of government, even more so one with guarantees of protection as described so concisely here
@ireneista @smallcircles i also think cryptographic systems should be discussed in these terms because while the game theoretical constructions in terms of oracles work for academic purposes, the intentionally abstract thought experiments they invoke also serve to depoliticize engineering decisions
@ireneista @smallcircles one curious analogy to OP is the variance across US states around the legality of recording a phone call. making it illegal to record a phone call you participated in typically renders the recording inadmissible as evidence (so you can't use a recording in court). this makes certain forms of whistleblowing illegal and makes it much more difficult to litigate an employer for sexual harassment. therefore, this "two-party" law (as observed in the state of california) structurally disadvantages plaintiffs.
@ireneista @smallcircles however, in advocacy (and even in the name "two-party"), the matter of recording is not cast in terms of litigation between adversarial parties, but as if it were a more intimate discussion between two good-faith individuals who are not currently filing a lawsuit against each other. one might even go so far as to think the two-party consent law would protect you against self-incrimination by law enforcement, assuming that nobody can record you without your consent under any circumstances. this is unfortunately not how (nor why) such laws are written, because US state governments will only protect the rights of their own citizens at best, and only under duress.
Great follow-up. Thank you.
