Fast tracking a censorship bill is always troubling. TAKE IT DOWN is the wrong approach to helping people whose intimate images are shared without their consent. We can help victims of online harassment without embracing a new regime of online censorship.
    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      31·
      3 days ago

      Don’t worry, they fully intend to use drones to wipe out any resistance. I always wondered when we’d live in the terror of the skies like they have in the middle east for two decades now.

      Kind of hard to use a handgun or shotgun to deal with a Reaper drone that’s nailing you from a mile away.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.socialEnglish
        8·
        3 days ago

        I think drone warfare so far has shown that one of the advantages of drones, for a weapon, is their ability to be produced cheapy, en masse, and with a relatively limited manufacturing infrastructure. Assuming you have the computer parts anyway, which are abundant in today’s society. One of the implications of that, I think, is that in future asymmetric or civil wars and the like, they’re not going to be like fighter jets or tanks, where one side will have them and the other must improvise countermeasures. They’re going to be like guns and explosives, where both sides are going to have access to at least some degree.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          2·
          3 days ago

          Oh absolutely agreed, I was mostly just responding to the idea that the 2nd amendment would be a safeguard. Last I checked, drones don’t seem to be considered a weapon in most cases, and thus are not seemingly covered by the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Instead, they’re a free-for-all, which is both a good thing and a bad thing, of course.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        I wonder how effective at 308 round is to a drone, even just putting a sizable hole in the wing. And that’s assuming it’s causing at an altitude that’s within range.