You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: I fear for my life's data. I fear for my life's data, too.
I repeat names too.
I repeat names, too.
#Too #DataToo #NamesToo #NameToo #Names2 #Name2
https://twitter.com/contechtext/status/1477554839416709121
https://www.facebook.com/prosody/posts/10101417338619324
https://www.fb.com/prosody/posts/10101417338619324
https://www.facebook.com/prosody/posts/10101417338619324?__c...
Naming, for example, becomes a reality thought experiment of another order.
If we asked people to legally state names for the record at a greater scale.
What if so and so actually said that name?
What if it was okay to name your...?
What if laws had to be made to specify what order of what name was appropriate (instead of selectively applying rules based on opinionated leadership not recorded permanently)?
What if there is a possibility there is/was a net benefit, to naming?
Clearly there are concerns with matter of fact naming being a risk/threat to identity issues that entail and cover deeper respects in US Law. However, that is not specified in any W3.org or Matrix.org documentation/specification. If naming is dictated by rules dealt only by extremes then we have not even talked about starting with naming your parent(s).
Reality in this experiment might start with naming your mom/dad/other being a respect/privilege some manage exceptionally.
We start to begin a narrative about where "privacy/private/public/open" change meaning. We strand together what goes from "private" to "public" and back, turning ("maybe") into a rumor/gossip, to what becomes common knowledge, and then language coming out as a (so far often indeterminable) process of determining linguistic faults, loopholes, and traces of fact in everyday talk about (and reporting memory of) your parent.
Oh and the fact I did not finish writing about...
Before I get to that edit/name/term/item I...
Wait I think I have 300 characters and 5 minutes according to the rules for this edit box, one sec...
Oh wait, your writing on, um, Google+, was not banned you say, you say it was just killed by a CEO?
Who remembers you said?
Oh wait, you mean literally everyones writing is available to Google still (for the "Law"), but you can not read your own Google+? You mean everyone who wrote/spoke there??
You think Google actually deleted Google+ (or maybe G jst did not want to talk about it, but saves it for...?)?
Sorry, just?
"Just"? Are we spelling that word correctly?
What percent of the population knows what it means that Steem is
append-only(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Append-only)? Could the law dignity/dignify that in legal code, or would the CIA/DEA secrets suffer, being forced to remember that too?Are we talking about your mother/father or, er, your motherland/fatherland here?