ohbtvz

Supporting free speech doesn't mean that you support absolute free speech without any limitation. We all have a lot of rights, and exercising those rights can impinge on the rights of others. Why would freedom of speech be somehow special and trump every single other right?

I don't know in English, but in French we have a saying: the freedom of some begins where the freedom of others ends.

Tell that to Iranians...

> I do not understand why homotopy type theory posts are so popular on this website.

It's easy. When you don't know a lot of math beyond college, but you see a post like this one, voting it up lets you pretend that you're in-the-know. "Oh yeah, I'm competent enough to upvote this. I know math." You may even end up fooling yourself into believing it. Same thing happens with physics, chemistry, linguistics... posts.

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. It's clear that the discussion is about general public-facing government websites. Something for which the intended audience is a large portion of the population.

The sentence "seems ... to me" already carries that meaning.

If I understand you correctly, the issue is that the Swedish government used jargon masquerading as a common word, and as a result people didn't understand the meaning. That's another example of jargon being a problem!

I don't have the book at hand. Do you have a more precise quote?

Your examples are not jargon, they're metaphors.

Jargon exists because specialists in a subject want to communicate quickly among themselves, instead of paraphrasing all the time. I'm a mathematician, if I had to use plain-English words instead of jargon in my papers, I would go insane. But my papers aren't meant for the general public (although they're welcome to read them), they're meant for a specialist audience. This is not the case of government websites.

Well, what's the difference between a "strong non-legal mandate" and a "helpful tip"? Either it's mandatory or not.

Using fewer words introduces less cognitive load and drives your point better.

For example, you wrote "The advice [...] seems somewhat pointless to me." Well, are you saying that it is pointless, or not? I don't know you, so I don't know what your scale of pointlessness is. I don't know what "somewhat pointless" corresponds to. Is it a tiny bit pointless, is it a medium amount of pointlessness, something else? I don't know, but I have to think about it because you wrote a meaningless word in your sentence. And even once I have understood the sentence, I am left thinking: "well, if it's only somewhat pointless, maybe it's not pointless after all!"

The same thing happens with "key stakeholders": now I have to think about a hierarchy of stakeholders. What scale is being used? Who's key, who's non-key? Does the sentence apply to all stakeholders, only some of them?

Multiply this by a hundred occurrences in a long document, and you obtain something that will be more difficult to read. But government documents have to be readable by everyone: people whose native tongue is not English, uneducated people who have trouble reading simple texts, etc. And for what? Sugarcoating your text so that it's less assertive? Showing literary prowess?

Please don't link to that website. Would you link to stormfront to make any kind of point here?

This is not the reason jargon exists. What made you say that?

> It's the reason that the speaker used all of the tech jargon (launching a website). If they didn't do that then we would think they didn't know about websites.

To "launch" something is jargon?

> However, the main cost is developer-effort involved in keeping track of keys and implementing encryption.

As soon as you need encryption in at least one place in your software, it's going to happen.

You can't check the hash of something you immediately piping to your shell, for example.