If the person lying by omission has the intent of causing the recipient to have false understanding (e.g. to provide basis for a choice) then it’s at least as dishonest as a blatant lie.
If they omit information because they think it’s irrelevant then it’s just ignorance or negligence. Dishonest in the sense that it’s not forthright.
Neither lies nor omission are inherently unethical without some basis for the relation between the two people being honesty/loyalty.
Whiskey farts?
Dr Epstein went on to invent the Epstein drive in the early 23rd century.
Well you’d need a strategy to defeat that mechanism to develop a high standard universal care in the first place. On one hand, that makes the entire argument moot, but on the other hand the same or similar strategy aught to function both for development and maintenance of the system.
Maybe that strategy is widely nuanced in finding an answer to each of the thousands of concerns and organizing for change through protocol. Alternatively there’s revolution and reboot.
It’s simply trust in the organization that maintains the app.
Unless you’re coordination/organizing about legal grey or red areas then it’s not much danger. Meta says it’s E2E but do they really not have access to your data? I don’t believe them. Any data they have would be happily handed over to the authorities just like your protonmail.
Signal just straight up doesn’t have access since it’s all stored at the endpoint and they provide no remote backup.
Yes but if taxes are paying for the system then preventing tax exemption and building a competitive standard of care system heavily disincentivizes use of the private system.
We could be granting everyone in the world a high standard of living but instead we’re going to charge them to self-induce early onset neurodegenerative disease.