= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (457)
The Surgeon General recommends that you not discuss criminal activities, with respect to laws actually enforced, on any mailing list containing more than 5 people.
Why 5?
Have you ever tried to get a group of more than 5 people to keep a secret?
Have you ever tried to get a group of 4 people to keep a secret?
I'm just wondering where the particular number comes from. Three people can keep a secret if two are dead and all that...
Intriguing, actual paraphrasing here of a US "The Surgeon General"? I can imagine it is something someone in high office might say.
The Surgeon General is someone who issues national health recommendations. The implication of Eliezer's post is that discussing criminal activity may be hazardous to your health.
We have a The Surgeon General, but he recommends things about smoking and whatnot; I'm pretty sure he doesn't issue warnings about mailing lists.
I was thinking of the London list, and this thread, about a drug which isn't actually illegal in the UK (it's prescription-restricted, but not illegal at all to possess) but selling it in public in a pub as if it is. I mean, WHAT. There's stupidity that isn't actually illegal but is nevertheless blithering.
That seems sensible enough, you are allowed the drug if a competent expert has determined it is in your best interests to have it, but as you are not yourself qualifies to make that decision you can't transfer ownership to others.