buellerbueller

I am sorry that you live in so much fear and anger. You have already been beaten.

Requiring someone to have more than 20 characters, when 20 or fewer will do perfectly? Yes.

It wasnt until 1891 that America extended copyright protection to foreign authors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Copyright_Act_of...

IP "theft" has been a longstanding part of any developing nation's economy.

Altman lies.

The only reasonable thing to do is simply not bring your phone.

Actually, not bringing your phone is eminently unreasonable, particularly to an airport. Sure, you could wait in a line for a paper boarding pass, but if everyone were "reasonable" and did this, what do you think it would do to airport lines? What would happen when a flight gets canceled, and everyone rushes to the desks for help?

Buddy, birth has a 100% fatality rate. Life is risk.

The state of the US is much more dire than most people are letting on.

This is unfalsifiable, so not a great claim. You can continue to claim this forever without having to prove it.

All I know is I can't take my phone into the airport. I can't go out and protest without risking my life and freedom. I can't drive anywhere without my location being tracked and logged. And, if I get pulled over, I must comply with any order, no matter how unlawful, otherwise I risk being executed in the street.

Wild, wild exaggerations, but you will point to your unfalsifiable claim to justify them.

The VAST MAJORITY of people in the US who engage in the things that you claim that they cannot, do so, and with no consequence.

I am no fan of this administration, but I am even less a fan of outright exaggeration (which is even one of the defining hallmarks of Mr. Trump)

US corporations have some autonomy from the government

This is correct...because they just buy the government when they need to.

They should not; however, why should others who did not vote for Republicans suffer their fate? Merely because they live in the same political boundary? Get real.

Go ahead and ban me if you like, but if someone says I deserve a consequence by virtue of the political stance of unrelated people within the same political boundaries as I, then I am going to tell them to go fuck themselves.

It is in the spirit of the site that I actually made an argument before doing so.

Had I not been so raw in my response to the poster, garnering flags and downvotes, I doubt that they would even have been addressed at all.

[flagged]

I don't "vote blue." I vote for whichever candidate offers the most realistic solutions to the problem at hand. At times this may be "blue" but not necessarily. I have also voted 3rd party and skipped voting for a specific role alotgether.

Also, not even sure what you are talking about. My point specifically was about the congress, where the Republicans have stonewalled legislation, stolen SCOTUS seats, and shut down the government the vast majority of shutdowns since it became a "legitimate"(?) tactic.

Democrats have also pushed the slider further and further toward executive power every chance they get

for example...?

Yes, sadly, several decades ago, one of the parties started running on the platform of "the government is broken" and to help the electability of said platform, they kept breaking the government.

> -Your medical data is private, whereas this is a discussion about data from >the public sphere, where there is no legal expectation of privacy. >Maybe there should be? There is in other parts of the world.

I strenuously object. But that's not this conversation. It's way upstream, as the SCOTUS has already decided that there is no public expectation of privacy.

> -Randos can already observe your every movement, They just have to do it >physically. A stalker can already follow a woman's public movements. A robber >can already stake out a house. >Doing that in person is a much different thing in terms of commitment compared >to doing it from the comfort of your couch, or hell, having an AI model do it >for you and send you a nice notification.

A rando can send a drone or a fleet of drones to do the same surveillance that you are worried about here. Perhaps you are just really anti-drone?

> I would prefer public data available to all, rather than a one-sided >panopticon. With the former, at least we can watch the watchmen. >I would rather limit access to a power that can - at least theoretically - be >changed democratically, instead of having an infinite-sided panopticon.

There is no such thing as an infinite-sided panopticon. Definitionally, a panopticon is one-sided.

-Meta can already track your every move; that ship has sailed. Not sure why it is relevant to this discussion.

-Randos can already observe your every movement, They just have to do it physically. A stalker can already follow a woman's public movements. A robber can already stake out a house.

-Your medical data is private, whereas this is a discussion about data from the public sphere, where there is no legal expectation of privacy.

-I agree that it would be a better world if there were no drone surveillance, however, in a world where there is drone surveillance--i.e., the world in which we exist--I would prefer public data available to all, rather than a one-sided panopticon. With the former, at least we can watch the watchmen.

Ok, thats simple: no commercial use licensing. This already exists, via various copyleft mechanisms.

I think the value of having the data on public spaces publicly available far outweighs the risk of privately held data, or editorializaed data from public spaces.

Also: You're welcome to disable push notifications if you don't want a big mac ad. (I agree that advertising is a cancer.)

Also, 2: What right should the government have to capture public data and then keep it from the public?

What are the safeguards that are in place here? What happens when this surveillance capability falls into the hands of an autocratic government?

All camera footage should be publicly available.

I largely agree with you for the time being; I think right now we are in the "dumb authoritarian" phase because Trump, Musk, Thiel can't keep their mouths shut about their true motivations. I fear that there are probably a smarter generation of authoritarians who are more clever (Russel Vought, for example), and not in the spotlight, waiting for their time to ascend.

The loud ones come first, because they have to corrupt the minds of the youth and the mentally weak so they can have a movement.

The librarians should curate, not the parents. The parents are welcome to decide for their own children what is permissible and not, but should have no authority to prevent others' children from accessing materials they do not find objectionable.

Why is it about "parental rights" when it comes to anti-vaccination, but authoritarian control mechanisms when it comes to someone else's kid reading a fucking book?

When people ban books because they don't want others to learn about trans people, they're usually pretty vocal about their motivations.

You assume they are vocal about their motivations, because how could you possibly know, if they claim it under cover of "not enough shelf space"?

Yes, book bans are bad no matter who does it. See how simple that is?

See also: normal people who aren't afraid of books and think that banning them is silly.

Of course it worked. Any authoritarian intent on banning a book just could give the spurious reason that "the library does not have enough room" and then there is no censorship ever, according to the original post. See how childish that reasoning is?

This usage of "banned" has been around for over a century, beginning in the USA when the USPS tried to interdict copies of Joyce's Ulysses. It further gained popularity when Tropic of Cancer and Lady Chatterly's Lover were challenged as obscenity in landmark 1950s-60s trials.

The first Banned Books Week happened in 1982, sponsored by the American Library Association.

However, yes, since 2021 there has been a big spike in the usage of the term "banned" books. Perhaps it was because around that time, there has been a massive push to challenge books (the ironically named "Moms for Liberty" though whose liberty they are protecting seems to be up for debate). 2023 saw >4,000 books challenged, whereas an average year between 2001-2020 saw ~275.

Perhaps if people stopped trying to police the reading habits of others' children, people would be less apt to talk about so called "banned" books?

I, for one, think that policing the reading habits of other people, and the micromanagement of libraries, is far more odious than the hyperbolic use of the word "banned." No one has to check out a book they don't want to.

human language != computer languages and that's why the latter exists. if human language had the precision you are (futilely, ahistorically) pining for, then we could program with them.

My point was to highlight the ridiculousness of the comment to which I was responding; glad it worked!

Since there are no libraries with space for every book (ever), then there is no censorship?

Yes, this is colloquially referred to as "banning." Sorry, you don't get to decide how others use language.

There are plenty of other career options.

No, not really, for felons.

Perhaps not managing AI camera systems that track children.

Literal think of the children lol.