the numbers don’t matter nearly as much as the intent.
“merely” planning a murder is illegal, same with genocide.
there’s this weird idea that an event can only ever be a genocide after all the victims have died. that’s not true, and never has been.
the “paradox” as the user above pointed out, simply isn’t a paradox at all:
“A” = “not A” is never a true statement in any sort of logical framework.
and that’s all that the “paradox” really says: a society cannot be tolerant AND intolerant at the same time. it has to pick one.
it boils down to “you can’t have it both ways”, and that is the intended meaning.
i believe a grave mistake was made by popper when he popularized the concept as a “paradox” rather than a simple logical, and by no means new, conclusion.
in his attempt to frame it in a technical/philosophical context for his peers, he inadvertently made it seem like some kind of nebulous, unknowable dilemma to the general population.
there is not, and has never been, a dilemma here. it’s simply a logical conclusion.
it’s kind of like the whole misunderstanding of “theory” vs “hypothesis” leading to the now-common “evolution is just a theory” among religious fundamentalists.
“it’s just a theory” is wrong, because a theory in a scientific context is proven true, there’s nothing hypothetical about it.
in a similar vein, the “paradox” is a only a paradox in the sense that it seems counter-intuitive at first glance that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, but the conclusion is crystal clear.
and that last part seems lost on people, because when the average person hears the word “paradox” they assume that there is no conclusion or definitive answer to something, when in this case, there is a definite conclusion.
and that assumption of “paradox = dilemma” is why people constantly misunderstand the paradox of tolerance. the assumption is wrong.
popper called the conclusion “paradoxical”, which isn’t the same as something being an actual paradox.
i really wish they’d used a different name for the concept, because the name is a terrible case of misnomer…
afaik the client does collect a bunch if data, most (all, i think? but not a 100% on that) of which is opt-in.
they do need stuff like IPs for internet related features.
telemetry wise there’s the steam hardware survey, which is opt-in, and it asks every single time it attempts to collect your systems hardware and OS information. this could technically be identifying information, but since it’s opt-in it’s not a privacy violation and it’s entirely optional. (plus it’s super useful for all involved: users, devs, and steam. it’s kind of a win-win and straight up necessary info for devs to know which hardware they should optimize for)
they might be putting it at the top because steam has native support for DRM?
but that’s also weird, because DRM isn’t a privacy violation. it’s a shitty practice, barely does anything, barely works, and keeps breaking or hobbling otherwise perfectly good games, all of which is shitty, but it’s little to do with privacy. and the dev has to specifically opt-in and integrate it as a feature…unless they’re thinking of 3rd party DRM that can be waaay more intrusive, like Vanguard… THAT’S a privacy and security nightmare just waiting to blow up in people’s faces.
otherwise…i haven’t really heard anything bad about steam privacy wise?
doesn’t mean that there’s nothing to be concerned about, but i feel like there’d been some news about it if there was…
genocide, by definition, includes the erasure of a cultural group.
these camps are purpose built to erase a specific culture through “re-education”. that is genocide.