leggomuhgreggo

The vipers in the big nest need a bunch of trash cyber security media to premise renewal of sanctions against DPRK.

Bless our patriotic vipers, and their white hat hackers/influencers.

( it's a "vital mineral" after all.)

I read the summary and didn't see anything very adventurous.

Sounds about right.

I was worried that this referred to personal conversations and was about to say "dang have we gone too far?" but yeah this makes sense.

Probably goes without saying but — we don't want to condemn/bastardize/immiserate the entire institution...

What does 'deserve' mean?

How do you distinguish it from vengeance?

If the idea is that it has deterrent value, how do we measure that?

Also why are we trying to deter? What's the social cost of the behavior his platform helped facilitate?

How much did his being a party to that behavior contribute to its prevalence? Is there any evidence suggesting the behavior wouldn't have been enacted through alternative intermediaries?

Most importantly: Is there any unintended secondary cost to society, as a result of bringing punitive repercussions on intermediaries that are incidentally party to an undesired behavior?

In Policy Analysis one often sees a pattern where punitive policies exacerbate either the undesired behavior or associated antisocial behaviors

It's counter-intuitive but the correlation between criminalization and increased antisocial activity — and indeed net social cost — is quite strong.

In my view the only sensible approach to criminology is "consequentialism" with all punishments being informed by therapeutic approaches to reduce future harm — or "Harm Reduction"

When we allow ourselves to be guided by "scale balancing" rationales, it's just too easy for that to turn into sadism and worse "mob" sadism — where any view of proportionality (vague and aspirational to begin with) is abandoned until some "Lord of the Flies" moment of cruelty provokes social reflection.

Anyway thanks for considering my perspective.

My (perhaps sloppy) comparison with respect to public forums wasn't meant to be specific to Ancient Roman strictures, but that's solid trivia.

Perhaps the closer analogue would be modern public spaces in the US — although that too only goes so far.

I think there are a number of Palestinian journalist, who'd disagree

Social media platforms are increasingly akin to the pubic forums of old, where essentially all meaningful exchange of ideas takes place — and where excommunication functions like "free speech zones" designed to marginalize and render the exercise of political expression inert.

I would suggest a relevant precedent might be laws limiting media ownership.

I'd also point out that institutions of a certain size exercise control over human in a similar way to governments — and the "private business" distinction becomes increasingly blurry when we consider how deeply these companies collide with law enforcement and govt agencies to censor information.

It's a complicated topic!