I've kinda stopped using 'good' and 'bad' most of the time.

[munin@infosec.exchange]

I've kinda stopped using 'good' and 'bad' most of the time.

See, thing is, those concepts map more or less to "this is consonant/dissonant with my values and/or desires" - and I can't count on sharing anyone else's values anymore, being all queer and trans and shit.

So those terms aren't useful for communication for me - I'm not going to be able to communicate effectively by assuming others' values align with mine, especially because I absolutely know that's not the case.

Instead, I have to state what those values or desires are directly, and indicate what the relationship between the thing under discussion and those values is.

[munin@infosec.exchange]

so, e.g. -

"Microsoft Recall is bad" is not effective communication. Some dipshit's going to immediately argue that it meets his needs or desires and thus it's 'good', and then it's a whole-ass thing.

Instead, "Microsoft Recall provides a tool for domestic abusers to further their abuse" is much more effective. It specifies the behavior that I am concerned about, and the relationship of the thing being discussed to that behavior.

[kkarhan@infosec.space]

@munin also showcasing how it can be leveraged to #blackmail people and how it violates #WorkerRights as an #illegal #surveillance #malware is way harder to dodge...

[datarama@hachyderm.io]

@kkarhan @munin Violating worker rights as surveillance malware is its entire value proposal.