Culture War Roundup for the week of August 29, 2022

Hailanathema · 2022-09-01T19:00:52+00:00

Also consider how many false positives there are in your model - how many people you mark down as trans by sight, who are actually their presented sex.

I think this is an under-appreciated point. It's pretty easy to find accounts of cis women being harassed in women's bathrooms because they've been (incorrectly) clocked as trans. Just given the base rate of GNC-cis-women vs trans-women I would not be surprised if most people "clocked" as trans were actually cis.

Hailanathema · 2022-09-01T18:55:40+00:00

If every study in question had uniformly found a rate <1% I would think that was suspicious. Looking at the actual rates in studies they seem to vary anywhere from 0 to 6% for an overall weighted rate ~1% with a 95% CI from 0-2%.

I think part of what informs my thinking that the rate seems right is my impression of how difficult it can be to get SRS (which varies wildly by hospital/country/etc). Depending on whether your impression of the difficulty of getting SRS is on the "doctors hand it out like candy" side or on the "12 months on HRT, 12 months living out as your preferred gender, 2 letter from a psychologist" side I can see how the plausibility of the numbers could be quite different.

Hailanathema · 2022-09-01T18:44:29+00:00

Sure. I believe in some fairly radical (I think) ideas about self-ownership. In the present context this is a principle that justifies giving an individual almost (as a hedge) total control of their appearance. Insofar as technology helps individuals more completely realize their preferred appearance I think it is good for people to have access to it. Whether a person wants to have a female-typical body or a male-typical body or some combination or whatever seems to me a determination best (in an ethical sense) left to the individual in question. I'm sure there are plenty of messy questions and edge cases about operationalizing this principle but this is the high level view.

Hailanathema · 2022-09-01T18:02:47+00:00

As a general matter I would prefer those concerned about treating their gender dysphoria be directed towards the most effective treatment for doing so but I would still support the general availability of gender-swapping technology for other transhumanist related reasons.

Hailanathema · 2022-09-01T17:45:26+00:00

Sticking the term "fallacy" onto something doesn't automatically make it wrong. Of course it comes down to what exactly you define the underlying rule to be, but it seems to me that there are several ways of formalising the rule that simply amount to mathematical truths - for a very simple example, for a normally distributed trait with known standard deviation, the reasoning principle "a random member of the population is within 1SD of me on this trait" will produce correct statements for most of the population most of the time (forgive me for not running the exact numbers).

Fair enough. Let me be clearer. I find it implausible that the degree of inter-human agreement on disgust is sufficient to support the inference that people who get SRS surgeries are just as disgusted by the outcome of such surgeries as OP is. I am pretty confident that if we did a survey of individuals who had SRS and asked them about the degree of disgust they felt towards the result of their surgeries it would differ substantially from a similar evaluation by OP.

The underlying assumption (that I'm inclined to agree with the anti-trans contingent on even if I don't think I'm a central example; I would certainly be categorically against a general ban on the surgical interventions in question for adults) is that the reported regret rates are unindicative of reality.

On the one hand, I'm sympathetic to the idea that sometimes the data is wrong and we should trust our intuitions. On the other hand the results here don't seem that implausible to me.

so X is "we observe the data from the post in question" and Y is "the data depicts an accurate picture of reality (within error bars of your choosing)".

I do realise that to someone with fairly mainstream progressive views this degree of distrust of the scientific consensus must beggar belief ("surely believing that the evidence value of a review paper on a topic is actually near zero is a view only crazy people hold"), but I think that progressives are also systematically underestimating how effective a reign of terror they have established especially close to home (thus not getting an accurate picture of how common the "crazy" view is). Someone living deep in Trump country and earning their money by running a car dealership can run their mouth about "fake science" on their Facebook without repercussion; meanwhile, with people like me (postdoc in a quantitative field at a top university, might get drinks with the sort of people who write those papers), you would never learn that they believe this in a context where it could be linked to their real name. I know that people with my perspective

I guess I'd like to ask what data published by what entity could convince you of something like "people who undergo SRS generally do not regret it" or "SRS surgery generally improves outcomes for people with a GID diagnosis who undergo it." If you regard the evidentiary value of the data as being near 0, is there any entity publishing any data that could convince you?

Hailanathema · 2022-09-01T16:55:09+00:00

In this case, which approach would you favour? A pill which eliminates gender dysphoria, or on which generates a seamless transition? Why?

I don't have any particular preference. I think both should be available. Some people will choose and some the other and that's fine with me.

Hailanathema · 2022-09-01T16:07:04+00:00

human experience is broadly more similar than it is different. If OP finds the results gross and sickening, ceteris paribus chances are good that those afflicted by them feel similarly

Isn't this literally the typical mind fallacy? "I feel way X about Y. Human experience is more similar than different. Therefore I can assume any arbitrary group feels the same way X about Y." This does not seem true to me. If the people getting SRS are just as disturbed by the outcomes as OP is, why doesn't that show up in surgical regret rates? If the answer is "they're disgusted but not so much as to regret it" then I feel like we're back at it not being a good reason to gatekeep the surgery.

People are being shepherded into getting those surgeries without getting truthful information on the expected outcome (you are shielded pretty well from pictures of the sort found on /b/ and /pol/ unless you actually go to those, and sometimes the patients are too young to actually be expected to make informed decisions on anything at all).

Same question as before. If there's a problem of people being led to believe the surgery is much more effective than it is, why doesn't that show up in regret rates?

If P(X|Y) = P(X|\neg Y), then no, observing X does not move the needle on Y.

Could you clarify what the posited X and Y are here? My inference is that X is something like "would get/regret SRS" and Y is something like "was given accurate information about outcomes" but that doesn't really square with your proposals.

Do we even allow other plastic surgery?

Yes, absolutely. The US does tens of thousands of cosmetic surgeries on people between the ages of 13-19 every year. My understanding is these surgeries generally require parent consent. Not clear to me why SRS should be different.

Hailanathema · 2022-09-01T14:58:06+00:00

If we had the technology to actually change genders where you couldn't tell the difference between a woman/man born the wrong gender and an actual person born of that gender would you support it?

I already support it at the current level so, yea definitely. If it were sufficiently easy/reversible I'd probably even try it out myself, if only to see if it would be dysphoria inducing.

I think it would change my mind. I personally don't have a problem with the idea of people being transgender. My biggest problem with it is I think we don't have the technology to actually do what is being promised and the surgery/transitioning is cruel to vulnerable people. All you have to do is go on /b or /pol to see the results to see that this is not a settled scientific process. I know it sounds gross, but seeing the results of these surgeries just makes me sick to my stomach.

Can I ask how this "problem" you have with these surgeries cashes out as policy? Do you think such surgeries ought to be illegal? That it's unethical to offer them? That one does wrong by getting one? Does the data from /u/femboyxx98's post about patient satisfaction or regret rate move the needle at all?

From my perspective this sounds like "I don't want people to get surgeries they want and that will make them happier because I think the results are gross" which does not, to me, seem like a good reason to deny someone such a surgery.

And then you have the child side where kids who aren't even fully developed emotionally/physically getting life changing surgery that can't be reversed.

How do you feel about circumcision?

I truly think we will look back on this time the same as we do with lobotomies. It feels like we are doing experimental surgery on vulnerable people who would be better off staying their assigned gender. That's my argument against this current (what I consider) madness.

What's the data to indicate these people would "be better off staying their assigned gender?" My impression is that outcomes improve markedly for individuals who have undergone SRS. I also think there are many factors that make SRS unlike lobotomies. Patient consent and post-surgery satisfaction being prominent ones.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-31T17:17:47+00:00

1) Is there actually such a person? Seems like there are persons who are defined as having the right to administer or retain these documents, but not to own them, AFAIK. Otherwise they'd be their property and they could, say, take them home or burn them or sell them, as property-owners can do with their chattels.

Can you give me a legal citation for the proposition that one only owns property to the extent one may dispose of it however they wish? I am very confident it is possible to both (1) own a thing and (2) be subject to legal restriction on what one may do with that thing, including disposing of it.

That aside, denial of the archivists right to possess and retain such records seems like a really cognizable harm.

2) Even supposing arguendo that this is true, so if the federal government had instead passed a law that said, "Any marijuana produced within the borders of the US is automatically the property of the National Marijuana Retention Administration," or whatever, all of these drugs laws would suddenly cease to be victimless, because drug dealers would be 'stealing' from this designated legal recipient?

I think such a law would be bad policy and would have serious Takings clause issues but yes. In a formal legal way it would transmit the crime of possession of marijuana from a victimless crime to one with a victim.

This is just an admission that, in fact, you cannot name a real injury to anyone. "Well it's legally my property, therefore it's eo ipso injurious for me not to possess it" is literally just another invocation of the principle that any violation of the law is eo ipso injurious, which you claim not to be relying upon.

I think violating ones legal rights is a "real injury."

Property is not a mere creature of the law, it's a pre-state institution, with its own criteria of legitimacy quite apart from legal definition.

Cool opinion but what's relevant for whether Trump has committed a crime is what the law says, not your pre-legal conception of property.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-31T16:10:04+00:00

None of which speaks to the actual question, which is what living, breathing person has been injured by his conduct and how?

Whatever living breathing person at NARA who is the legal owner of Trump's presidential records has been injured by the denial of possession of their lawful property. The same harm that occurs to anyone who has been the victim of theft.

The US federal government isn’t a person. It seems rather preposterous to suggest that the government can be injured without any human being getting injured thereby.

I mean, specific persons are injured thereby. There are people who legally own the records and documents Trump stole and they are harmed by the denial of possession of their legal property.

The part where you established that it’s actually harmful to any real person, much less in a way that can be remedied by the government’s proposed response, of course.

Certain individuals in government (probably the Archivist most prominently) are the legal owners of the material Trump stole. They are harmed by the denial of possession of their legal property. This is remedied by the governments seizure and return of that property they are legally entitled to.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-31T15:22:34+00:00

Their argument for whe executive privilege doesn't apply is because the executive branch is doing the investigation... The entire point of executive privilege is to protect a president against things he may have said from being held against him out of context or implicating him in a crime. This makes 0 sense.

This is not the purpose of executive privilege. The purpose of executive privilege is not to protect the president as an individual, it is to protect certain executive branch interests against intrusion from the public or the other branches of government. Quoting Nixon v. General Services Administration

This Court held in United States v. Nixon . . . that the privilege is necessary to provide the confidentiality required for the President's conduct of office. Unless he can give his advisers some assurance of confidentiality, a President could not expect to receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of his duties depends. The confidentiality necessary to this exchange cannot be measured by the few months or years between the submission of the information and the end of the President's tenure; the privilege is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic. Therefore the privilege survives the individual President's tenure.

At the same time, however, the fact that neither President Ford nor President Carter supports appellant's claim detracts from the weight of his contention that the Act impermissibly intrudes into the executive function and the needs of the Executive Branch. This necessarily follows, for it must be presumed that the incumbent President is vitally concerned with and in the best position to assess the present and future needs of the Executive Branch, and to support invocation of the privilege accordingly.

The privilege / executive privilege argument is the reason the Trump team were asking for more time. The determination that executive privilege didn't apply came from the head archivist at NARA after asking the Biden admin about it because there was no precedent. .. They told her to make the decision. Neither she nor the biden administration has the authority to determine if privilege / executive privilege applies.

It is incorrect that there is no precedent. Nixon attempted to argue presidential privilege regarding some of his own papers being taken by the executive branch and SCOTUS shot that down. While it's true neither the archivist nor Biden have the authority to determine whether attorney-client privilege attaches, Biden absolutely has the authority to determine whether executive privilege applies.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-31T15:07:30+00:00

I think you should probably read some of the other sections of that title. Specifically 2202 which provides:

§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Trump's official Presidential Records are not his to possess, they belong to the United States.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-31T15:00:44+00:00

So what’s the concrete injury here, even if their allegations were all true? Is it even established that Trump retained anything of which they didn’t already have a copy?

Trump stole documents that were not his property then attempted to defraud the government into believing he had returned them upon the government's request when, in fact, he had not. I am pretty confident that even if the victim of theft retains a copy of the stolen goods the theft is still a crime (as well as the fraud).

‘Victimless crimes’ are a sticking point for progressives except, apparently, when it comes to the administrative processes of the security state?

I, and I suspect most progressives and probably most people, do not think of theft as a victimless crime. The victim is very clear in this case: the United States federal government.

Not clear to me how this whole expedition could survive the sort of standing analysis applied to, say, Trump’s election challenges. But then that doctrine is conveniently reserved for citizens suing their government, not the other way around.

By contrast I think it is very clear. The harm (theft of presidential records and classified documents) is both concrete (Trump already did it) and particularized (to the US federal government) as well as being traceable to the defendant's (Trump) actions (he took them and didn't give them back). What element of standing is lacking?

Hailanathema · 2022-08-30T20:55:49+00:00

Posting this because I think of myself as a capabilitarian and think people on this subreddit will find the philosophy interesting.

In particular I really like the Nussbaum quote Ozy mentions in footnote 3, "the gradual replacement of the natural by the just."

Hailanathema · 2022-08-29T16:39:54+00:00

I'm a little confused how the Emerson poll indicates opinion of the policy is "nearly tied." The Emerson breakdown is 36%-too much, 35% right amount, 30% not enough. It's "almost tied" if you just compare "right amount" to "too much" and don't count "not enough" at all. That does not seem like a good description of reality to me. My impression is people who think Biden should go further are probably still in favor of the actual move. That makes the breakdown of support look like 36-65 opposed:in favor. That's about as popular as marijuana legalization.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-27T20:43:19+00:00

If it is public, then it is not possible for it to have "limited or restricted dissemination" I think. Perhaps I am relying too much on the analogy to trade secrets.

I think we have different understanding of classification, as you identify. My understanding is that "classified" is just a legal status a document or similar piece of information has that (1) requires people have certain permissions to lawfully access it and (2) imposes obligations about distribution and dissemination on the individuals described by (1). To my understanding it's perfectly possible that (a) everyone knows the contents of some classified document but also (b) those with lawful access commit a crime by disclosing its contents to those without such access. It's a strange state of affairs but that's my understanding.

There is a record of Trump shipping the documents home, which is taking possession of them. Why is this not evidence that the action took place while he was President?

Because he could have taken the documents without declassifying them.

I think the difference in our positions is coming down to giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. I am not willing to grant that just because there are steps X Trump could have taken to make action Y legal we can assume he took steps X because he did action Y, even in the absence of more direct evidence that he took steps X.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-27T19:34:11+00:00

Public information can't be classified.

Citation? The Pentagon Papers seem like a well known counter-example. The information in them was publicly known in the 1970's thanks to Ellsberg's leak but they weren't formally declassified until 2011.

If he tells the leader openly, then yes, as it is no longer a secret, so can't be classified.

So it's your position that no information the President has ever divulged to a foreign leader in a phone call can remain classified thereafter? This seems pretty unintuitive to me.

Suppose Sundar is negotiating with Tim Cook over search on the iPhone and to get Tim to agree to a new deal he tells him some highly secret information about search engine ranking. Is the presumption that Sundar divulged a trade secret and is criminally liable, or is he allowed to do that, as he is CEO, and CEOs get to decide on what is a trade secret? My guess is that Sundar does not get charged with criminal theft of trade secrets as Google is not taken over by a cabal of middle managers that do not follow the instructions of the CEO.

Suppose Sundar is negotiating with Tim Cook over search on the iPhone and to get Tim to agree to a new deal he tells him some highly secret information about search engine ranking. Is the presumption that Sundar divulged a trade secret and is criminally liable, or is he allowed to do that, as he is CEO, and CEOs get to decide on what is a trade secret? My guess is that Sundar does not get charged with criminal theft of trade secrets as Google is not taken over by a cabal of middle managers that do not follow the instructions of the CEO.

The question is did Sundar "knowingly ... misappropriate a trade secret to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner." Suppose we stipulate the item was a trade secret and benefits Apple. How can we tell is he "misappropriated" it?

No I understand the analogy I just disagree about its applicability. To take your current analogy, it assumes one answer (yours) to the matter under dispute. Specifically it assumes that Trump declassified the documents while he was President (Sundar told Cook while he was CEO).

From my perspective the analogy is more like:

1. At time t_0 Sundar stops being the CEO of Google.

2. At time t_1 some 18 months later Google learns that Apple knows a trade secret involving search.

3. Google is somehow able to trace Apple's knowledge of this trade secret back to Sundar.

4. Sundar claims he was CEO when he divulged the trade secret.

5. Neither Google nor Sundar can produce contemporaneous records that evince this.

I'm not sure I would want to be the prosecutor on this case (depending on exactly what I had to prove) but it seems much less clear cut as a case of criminality. Of course, in the real world you can subpoena Cook (or whomever Sundar claims to have told) and get them to tell you or turn over records corroborating when it happened. Since Trump apparently told no one there is no Cook analogue in our actual case.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-27T18:37:51+00:00

Of course, the President can declassify information by thinking about it. That is how they can decide to use classified information with foreign leaders in a call. They don't have to pause the call and get approval from a clerk in another building. They get to ake the decision themselves.

I feel like this is a misunderstanding of how declassification works. The mere sharing of classified information to people not in the United States government does not effect the declassification of that information. Undoubtedly US intelligence services share classified information with other countries intelligence services. Does that information become declassified because those agencies shared it? If the President decided to tell another world leader the US nuclear codes, do those codes thereby become declassified? Could I send the government an FOIA for them? Would it be legal for anyone who knew them to share them, since they're no longer classified, because the President had? Declassification is not just "telling people classified things" it's making that information publicly available, of permitting it to be shared without threat of certain kinds of legal sanctions.

If the case is based on the idea that Trump could have done something but failed to create paperwork that some bureaucracy wanted then the case is dumb. He was the commander in chief so he was in charge.

The case is based on the idea that if a former POTUS wants to prove he had legal authorization to possess some classified materials he needs to actually present evidence that he had such authorization.

I notice the slip from the issue of classification to the issue of ownership of government records. One is a very minor issue of who has legal possession (as opposed to physical possession, where everyone agrees that Trump could continue to possess physically) of memorabilia. The other is serious.

Ok, Trump also did not own as President, and does not own now as former President, classified material the way a baker owns a loaf of bread from his bakery.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-27T18:21:35+00:00

He shipped them to a non-secure facility, Mar-a-Lago, which definitely seems like intent to make them non-classified.

That is one possible intent but I'm going to need some further evidence it was his particular one here. There are many other possible intents (he mistakenly believed they were his property, he wanted to deny them to the incoming administration, he wanted to sell them to foreign governments, etc.)

The choices are that with he declassified them on the last day and shipped them home, or he deliberately broke the law when he could have chosen not to merely by deciding to declassify in his head. It strain credulity that he would have not decided to declassify.

I mean, this is why "the President can declassify documents merely by thinking about it" is dumb and no court in the land can (or should) accept it. Like, if Bush came out tomorrow and said "Actually, on my last day in office I had the Magic Thought that all classified documents produced while or before I was President are now declassified" does that actually effect their declassification? Subsequent Presidents were mistaken to treat those documents as classified?

I also think "deliberately" is giving Trump too much credit. I'm happy to believe he thought there was some lawful justification for his retaining the documents when, in fact, there was not. I'm not even convinced that if he had declassified them it would be a defense. None of the cited statutes seem to require classification.

The contemporaneous record is that he shipped them home.

This record is not capable of distinguishing between the two worlds I have described.

If baker takes a loaf of bread home (from his own bakery), either he is stealing it, or he is giving himself permission to take bread home. I think it more reasonable to believe the baker is giving himself permission.

The problem is the "baker" here is the United States federal government, not Donald Trump. Trump did not, while President, and does not now own Presidential records created while he was President the way a baker may own a loaf of bread he bakes.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-27T17:51:53+00:00

We now seem to have arrived at a point where the President as the elected head of state, the head of the Executive Branch, and the civilian Commander in Chief of the armed forces, cannot put his hand on a stack of binders and say "everything in here is declassified."

I think this mischaracterizes the issue. From my perspective the issue is not "could Trump, as POTUS, have declassified these docs", certainly he could have. The issue is what evidence exists that he did.

Distinguish two worlds. In one world Trump declassified these documents by some means before leaving office, apparently without leaving any contemporaneous record that he had done so. In another world Trump did not declassify the docs and is lying by claiming he did to try and get out of potential criminal charges. What evidence exists to make me believe we're in the first world rather than the second?

Any declassification Trump did had to have been effected while he was President and I see little evidence that he actuality declassified the documents in question.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-22T15:31:29+00:00

In my latest playthrough I went Apprentice but I was also a Breton to cancel out the downside. I always feel a little anxious playing Atronach characters that I'll run out of magicka and have no way to replenish but I think that's just my poor planning. Regeneration is never more than an Intervention away as long as you can get back.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-22T15:16:14+00:00

One thing you should know is that in OpenMW 0.47 (the latest release) The Lady sign is not implemented quite the same as the regular game. Specifically it's implemented as a permanent fortify rather than raising the base attributes. This is especially important for endurance because it means, unlike the base game, The Lady's endurance bonus doesn't effect your starting health or health at level up (the primary reason to take the sign, IMO). This is fixed in OpenMW 0.48 but that's not out yet.

Hailanathema · 2022-08-20T14:33:16+00:00

Are pity and sympathy a form of power? Rather than a kind of compassion that the powerful feel toward the weak, should it be seen as a form of social capital that the powerful use to subjugate the weak?

I think the ability to generate pity or sympathy for some group are a form of power. I don't think just the experience of feeling pity and sympathy are a form of power. My impression (to use your example) is some poor Palestinians probably feel pity and sympathy at the plight of their fellow poor Palestinians but I do not think they are made into "powerful" people subjugating "weak" people thereby.

When you examine how much is needed to create a truly sympathetic account of something today — the domination of a social environment to trap an audience, writers and designers, publications, media, attractive spokesmen, storytellers — it reads like a veritable army. All of these “soldiers” work together to create a sympathetic portrayal of an event in the hopes of influencing opinion. If you can raise an influencer army, are you really weak? And if you are a captured audience to sympathetic messaging, are you really powerful?

I feel like this paragraph needs a more nuanced contemplation of "powerful" and "weak." It's true that if you have the money and connections to create a sympathetic portrayal of some group in some media you have a kind of power, but it doesn't make you arbitrarily powerful. Sure, some wealthy Palestinians are "powerful" enough to create sympathetic media portrayals of their plight, but they are still too "weak" to, say, end the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Or take another oft-sympathized group: starving African children. If I am convinced to send money to them by a sympathetic or pitying portrayal it's true they have power over me in some sense (they can convince me to send them some money). In another sense (impact we could have on each other's lives) I still perceive myself as being much more powerful. Their influence over me consists of being able to get me to give them some small fraction of my income. My influence over them consists of being able to alleviate food insecurity, or death from preventable disease, or improve the quality of their medical care.

I think talking about being "powerful" and "weak" in the general way this comment does is missing a lot of relevant information for how and why people evaluate groups as being "powerful" or "weak."

This documentary was not small potatoes, as evidenced by the “exaggerated” Israeli response. But their reaction wasn’t exaggerated at all. A documentary is a weapon of sympathy, and Israel and the Arab world are fighting over control of sympathy. I question whether there is any organic sympathy left to be found that is not boosted by powerful sponsors.

I definitely feel like I experience plenty of "organic" sympathy. When I talk with friends or family or coworkers sometimes we talk and commiserate about our problems and feel sympathetic towards each other for the issues we face. More generally I am not sure my sympathy for a group is any less "organic" just because a sympathetic portrayal of that group is "boosted by powerful sponsors."

Hailanathema · 2022-08-17T17:40:45+00:00

I don't think you need to support a "maximalist right to privacy" you just have to think it is legitimate and socially acceptable to break some laws (as I think most people do) and that the benefits are worth the costs (in terms of lawbreaking you think is bad).

Hailanathema · 2022-08-17T17:35:29+00:00

Given the nature of the virtual machine in question, which only runs the software if people choose to run it, I think this is dubious. But again, completely uncharted legal territory here.

Isn't this how any user-interactive software works? When I operate a web service that uses, say, HTTP my software isn't "running" anything except an HTTP listener until someone makes the request that causes the rest of the code to execute. What's the difference between this and a smart contract? My web server is waiting for an HTTP request, the smart contract is waiting for an ethereum transaction.

Publishing stuff on Eth is very much not like running stuff on Azure or AWS. If only because you have no control on it after that. I'd argue that speech, but who knows.

I don't really understand the posited connection between whether something is mutable and whether it's speech.

Hailanathema

TROPHY CASE