zlacker

But evil uses paper is probably going to do less harm than evil uses Tor or a gun or a nuke. Societal control must adapt to the medium on a regularly adjusting basis depending on the perceived level of evil.

>>tdyen+(OP)
Do not underestimate the power of paper. Because with the right amount of legal framework (on paper) I can evict people from their houses, sell these of for a nice profit and not have to care for the fate of said people.

I could rob whole countries of their future (say Greece) with paper treaties.

I can rob people of most of their democratic power (see lots of tries at treaties like TTIP or some things like this).

All on paper and in my eyes tending to the evil side.

The problem with evil though is, that it isn't an objective term, it is not empirically measurable and it has so many definitions and perspectives, that it has none.

Evil is a weasle-word, is propaganda, nothing more. So we really need a better word, a better definition. And breaking the law or something like that does not work either, as for example the laws in Germany, the US or Saudi Arabia or China tend to differ massively. They are ideologically tainted and do not provide an objective framework/reference either.

So we should work on a actionable and helpful definition first and not go partisan on the medium to be controlled.

>>sdoeri+U
The issue here is more or less. A kitchen knife is bound to cause less casualty than a machine gun in the hand of a psycho, hence we require licenses for gun. It's not to eliminate death through violence, it's to reduce and deter it. We don't want people to reach for the nearest machine gun whenever they have a domestic quarrel (obviously we don't want people to reach for a knife either, but I hope you get my point) or when their neighbor's dog poops in their yard.