I came up with this a couple minutes ago. I think its funny and maybe helpful? Please be gentle. Have a good one.
- You shall not join corporate social media
- You shall not subject your children to predatory marketing techniques
- You shall spend up to 10% extra to shop locally or with small companies, more if you can
- You shall voice your support for fairness, equality and against bullying wherever you go
- You shall not think of living things in hierarchical order (x is better than y)
- You shall not compromise freedom and privacy for comfort or “sAfEtY”
- You shall pay techy friends for their help - at least in food
- You shall install an ad blocker
- You shall not praise big tech, proprietary products or IP law.
- You shall not use proprietary software if a good FOSS alternative exists
I take argument with #5 as a concept.
My region is against speed and red light cameras out of freedom and privacy arguments; so people get slaughtered by cars instead.
Fine for selfhosting though.
Studies show red light cameras don’t decrease accident rates in the intersections they’re installed at. Furthermore, some municipalities have started doing things like varying timing of the light cycle to get more people running red lights for the increased revenue. These cameras haven’t been shown to decrease accident or injury/fatality rates anywhere they’re installed. If you’re against people being slaughtered by cars, it seems you should be against red light cameras since they don’t do any good and have the potential to make things worse.
How do you figure? Red light cameras decrease frequency and severity of crashed at signalized intersections. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46552
There is some increase in rear ended, but those are much less severe than right angle or pedestrian collisions.
Cities adjusting the dilemma zone, or increasing speed limit; is a problem with revenue usage of red light cameras; and revenues should be going to victim funds. It also seems to be a uniquely USA problem? That could be a taxation and funding source issue.
I agree. The argument would be good against always-on cameras though. I dont see an argument against red light cams.
I’d argue that’s fundamentally a problem with car drivers, not with the lack of surveillance, but I get your point. People do have a freedom not to crushed by traffic, and it sort of outweighs others’ freedom not to be caught on camera while crushing others with their cars.
Drivers and road design.