Papers please: for millions of Americans, accessing online pornography now requires a government ID. It could have global implications for the future of the web.
Why wouldn’t they pass that in California? California loves monitoring people. Right now it’s mostly with cars (license plate readers, and now digital license plates with tracking built-in), but I really don’t see why they wouldn’t do this. They’re already starting with social media, I would assume porn would come soon after. Yeah, they have something akin to the GDPR, but that’s not at odds with tracking people, it’s just a nod so people don’t notice what they’re up to…
Screw California, they don’t care about privacy at all.
I’m demonstrating two examples of privacy-violating policy from California, where the excuse is to help in policing. If they can tie in policing to porn/social media, I think they’ll do it. So yes, it’s a slippery slope argument, but I don’t think it’s a fallacy.
Why wouldn’t they pass that in California? California loves monitoring people. Right now it’s mostly with cars (license plate readers, and now digital license plates with tracking built-in), but I really don’t see why they wouldn’t do this. They’re already starting with social media, I would assume porn would come soon after. Yeah, they have something akin to the GDPR, but that’s not at odds with tracking people, it’s just a nod so people don’t notice what they’re up to…
Screw California, they don’t care about privacy at all.
Smells like a slippery slope fallacy to me
No, it’s a slippery slope argument. It’s a fallacy if and only if the claim in unlikely to follow from the initial argument.
I’m demonstrating two examples of privacy-violating policy from California, where the excuse is to help in policing. If they can tie in policing to porn/social media, I think they’ll do it. So yes, it’s a slippery slope argument, but I don’t think it’s a fallacy.
Yours sounds like a fallacy fallacy. Pointing out a logical error doesn’t mean the conclusion is inherently wrong.