More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

[CitizenCain]

Wow, you are a fucking moron. Not once, ever, have I even suggested I openly pirate anything. In fact, the last dumbass who tried to suggest I did was Loki, and I replied to him with a post full of evidence that I own and paid for everything I use and install. I've countered the suggestion that I'm a pirate every single time someone wants to go full retard and claim that.

Get a grip. You are a pirate. Whether you use cracks and image mounting software to disable the crippling DRM crap on stuff you bought, or you use it to avoid paying for content, you're a pirate, period. And yes, the familiarity shown when you've discussed the topic in the past is only possible as a result of experience... you've used them, you're a pirate. The fact that you paid for all your stuff only proves that you're not a thief - it doesn't say anything about your status as a pirate.

You are (or were) breaking the law and committing federal felonies, even if you paid for the content. Being a childish ass and throwing a tantrum at the label doesn't change it. And, again, this bullshit is a result of the DMCA... Digital Millenium Copyright Act... which is what happened the last time our [US] government tried to regulate the internet. Smashing success, that. Yet, somehow, despite the last attempt being a massive clusterfuck that makes you a felon and applies a label to you that you don't like, your solution to this issue seems to be more legislation. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a definition of insanity and/or stupidity.

Attempting to hold a debate with you [Dread] is like arguing with a damn 9 year old (seriously, personal experience).

Personal experience as the one acting like a nine year old, I assume? Well, stop acting like a child. Really, all your bullshit does beg the question of what the point of responding to you is, when all you give back is childish crap:

Wow, you are a fucking moron. [...]
someone wants to go full retard and claim that. [...]
You are a asshole Dread. [...]

Seriously, pro-tip: If you wanna accuse someone of acting like a child, don't do the name calling thing... kinda hurts your credibility on the topic a wee bit.

Removing DRM is a far cry from attacking copyright laws.

No, it's not. It's an explicit violation of the DMCA, the copyright law in question.

And, again, the fact that you have no problem with pissing on the DMCA because it deserves to be pissed on, and is a really shitty law should probably raise some red flags in your mind about having some e-privacy legislation pushed through. Because anyone who's read any copyright news in the last 2 decades can tell you what's going to happen the instant some privacy law like you suggest gets passed - Sony, the RIAA, the MPAA, Apple, and so on, are going to use privacy provisions to get speech they disagree with yanked off the internet. Not to mention corrupt governments and government officials and the like, and how any law of this sort essentially legalizes cover ups. Yippie. All that because you want to make it harder to find drunken pics of yourself (or whomever)?

And the point I'm making is that Facebook already has tools available for what you consider "censorship", ie. that you can untag yourself after the fact, or opt out of a service after you're automatically opted in, or do those things once you become a member, and I am asking how you assume it is intrinsically different "censorship"-wise whether you opt out beforehand (my suggestion for how Facebook could operate), or opt out afterwards (currently implemented functionality).

I'm beginning to think you don't know what censorship actually is... when you remove something you uploaded, from the site you uploaded it to... this is not censorship. It's censorship when *I* try to remove something *you* uploaded.

[Illusions]

I'm beginning to think you don't know what censorship actually is... when you remove something you uploaded, from the site you uploaded it to... this is not censorship. It's censorship when *I* try to remove something *you* uploaded.

If my friend on Facebook tags me in a photo, I can untag myself. If someone posts something on my wall, I can delete it. This is already a feature. If they opt me into having my picture featured in their ads I can opt out. They already provide methods for censorship, you can remove or undo things other people do. So if Facebook auto-tags me in a photo, I can manually go through and untag myself. Since I already have the option to do it manually, how is it worse to allow me to opt out all together, or let me automatically do it?

See I don't think the problem is that I don't know what censorship is (I do know what it is, thanks for the explanation*), I think the problem is you don't know the already existing functions within Facebook (like untagging photos, or deleting other people's wall posts).

* When you delete something you wrote out of concern someone may find it and use it against you, this is self-censorship.

[CitizenCain]

If my friend on Facebook tags me in a photo I can untag myself. If someone posts something on my wall, I can delete it. This is already a feature. If they opt me into having my picture featured in their ads I can opt out. They already provide methods for censorship, you can remove or undo things other people do. So if Facebook auto-tags me in a photo, I can manually go through and untag myself. Since I already have the option to do it manually, how is it worse to allow me to opt out all together, or let me automatically do it?

So basically, you're saying you can control your wall, and pictures you upload into your account... and you think this is censorship (), and that there's no difference between you being allowed to modify your account and you being allowed to modify someone else's?

Really, that's really the position you're taking here?

See I don't think the problem is that I don't know what censorship is (I do know what it is, thanks for the explanation),

The more you post, the more convinced I become that you don't know what censorship is, actually. Oh crap, I just censorshipped myself by using the backspace button to remove a sentence in typing this post!

Again, it's not censorship when you control the information you share. It's not censorship when you control what goes up on your wall - it's your wall, in effect your property, of course you can do what you want with it. Same deal with your photo albums and your other account... crap.

It's censorship when a third party controls what you can or cannot say. Like, for example, the government (through legislation), or me, because I don't like what you post on your wall about me. Those are examples of censorship. You controlling your speech and your e-property are not examples of censorship... more like examples of what we in the West consider to be "rights." Also, since you seem to not be noticing the difference, me obscuring my real IP address through the use of a proxy chain is not censorship either. Me deleting my posts, also, not censorship. That's me controlling the flow of information I share. Me exercising my freedom of speech/expression, by choosing what information to express and what information to withhold.

Truly, your definition of censorship, at least based on your last couple of posts is entirely bizzare. It's not a synonym for privacy, and it's not any situation where absolutely everything isn't freely disclosed. As convenient as that might be to your argument, it's just not what the word means. It's informational control by a third party.

Facebook does some censoring on its own as well. They have blocked, banned, or removed plenty of topics, keywords, links and other doodads over the years.

It's not really censorship considering that things uploaded to their web servers are on their property. Their property, their rules. I sincerely doubt you'd consider it "censorship" to tell me I can't come into your home and teach your little kids all kinds of nasty words... so you shouldn't apply a different standard to Zuckerberg (Facebook founder and CEO). His house, his rules.

[Illusions]

So basically, you're saying you can control your wall, and pictures you upload into your account...

No, I'm stating that if someone tags me in a photo they upload into one of their albums, I can untag myself. Also if someone says something I don't like, on my wall, I can delete it. This is the very definition of censorship. Censorship doesn't involve who owns something.

and you think this is censorship (), and that there's no difference between you being allowed to modify your account and you being allowed to modify someone else's?

I can modify my own, and someone else's. Is this really that hard to follow?

The more you post, the more convinced I become that you don't know what censorship is, actually. Oh crap, I just censorshipped myself by using the backspace button to remove a sentence in typing this post!

When you removed your posts from the old Atari forums out of concern that someone would find them, that is self censorship. If you correct spelling, or remove a ridiculous sentence, that isn't. The more you post, the more I think you're an ignorant, irascible, paranoid, delusional fucktard.

Again, it's not censorship when you control the information you share. It's not censorship when you control what goes up on your wall - it's your wall, in effect your property, of course you can do what you want with it. Same deal with your photo albums and your other account... crap.

Multiple problems with this:

1. It is self-censorship when you remove information you've already shared or were intending to share out of fear/concern/whatever that said information will negatively affect you, because of the reactions of other people.

2. I've already stated, numerous times, that you can control, as in remove certain things, on other people's photo albums, and walls.

3. If something being someone else's property means that if they remove something they don't like from it, that this action isn't censorship, then censorship is pretty shot as a concept. Newspaper changed your hateful rant against the government into something that makes you look like a moron? Not censorship, they own the paper. Book publisher removes that chapter about the government being pigs, because it might offend people or get them in trouble? Not censorship...they own the books. News reporter cuts you off when you start ranting about the government? Not censorship, they own the television broadcast! Friend said something unflattering about you on your wall on Facebook, so you delete it? Not censorship, its your wall!

...yeah I don't think your opinion on this one is in the majority.

It's censorship when a third party controls what you can or cannot say. Like, for example, the government (through legislation), or me, because I don't like what you post on your wall about me.

Or me, because I don't like that you tagged me in your photo album (an actual function Facebook currently has).

What if a third party owns the property you're trying to broadcast your message through...oh damn, wait, thats not censorship.

That's me controlling the flow of information I share.

Out of a paranoid delusion that someone will use it against you, which is self-censorship.

It's informational control by a third party.

Self-censorship as a concept exists and is used by many numerous people. I'm really interested in seeing you argue that words, or concepts, things that exist solely because they are defined and agreed upon by people, are wrong because you, a singular person, said so.

[LittleFuzzy]

Self-censorship as a concept exists and is used by many numerous people.|

It is. . . but it's also not. Self-censorship is actually also external. At its most non-coercive it's still basically doing something solely because of peer pressure even though it's not what YOU want to do. Self-censorship is an exercise of 2nd-degree power. Rather than directly suppressing something, they have you do it yourself. It's still the suppression of what you want for what the third party wants, still third-party control over your actions and voice.

[CitizenCain]

When you removed your posts from the old Atari forums out of concern that someone would find them, that is self censorship. If you correct spelling, or remove a ridiculous sentence, that isn't. The more you post, the more I think you're an ignorant, irascible, paranoid, delusional fucktard.

In accordance with Illusions' stated beliefs on everyone's right to control expression about themselves, I hereby exercise my right to privacy, and demand that the mods remove this. It is expression made about me, without my consent, and apparently I have a right to have it removed.

Thank you in advance for protecting my rights, and supporting Illusions' beliefs, at your earliest convenience.

[Illusions]

In accordance with Illusions' stated beliefs on everyone's right to control expression about themselves, I hereby exercise my right to privacy, and demand that the mods remove this. It is expression made about me, without my consent, and apparently I have a right to have it removed.

You seem to have problems with the difference between a right, and an already existing ability a website offers you. I'm stating that Facebook has an already existing ability to censor people, not that we have an inherent, natural right to it, like we do life or liberty. Stop acting like a child. Besides that, this website does offer you the ability to censor my posts at the mod's discretion, which involves using the report post function.

Thank you in advance for protecting my rights, and supporting Illusions' beliefs, at your earliest convenience.

Again, you don't have a right to censor other people, you have the ability to request from moderators that they remove a post, which you can do via the Report Post button.

It is. . . but it's also not. Self-censorship is actually also external. At its most non-coercive it's still basically doing something solely because of peer pressure even though it's not what YOU want to do. Self-censorship is an exercise of 2nd-degree power. Rather than directly suppressing something, they have you do it yourself. It's still the suppression of what you want for what the third party wants, still third-party control over your actions and voice.

So when Cain deleted his Atari forum posts out of concern someone might find them, would you consider this self censorship when the third party is an abstract concept like Cain's bogeyman government?

[Dreadnaught]

And the point I'm making is that Facebook already has tools available for what you consider "censorship", ie. that you can untag yourself after the fact, or opt out of a service after you're automatically opted in, or do those things once you become a member, and I am asking how you assume it is intrinsically different "censorship"-wise whether you opt out beforehand (my suggestion for how Facebook could operate), or opt out afterwards (currently implemented functionality).

Besides that stop acting like all censorship is bad. Your entire position here at the forums is to censor people when we ask for it. You don't post about who you actually are in real life, and have edited this information out of your own posts when it accidentally happens, and have edited it out of the posts of others. Is this not censorship too? How would you feel if I posted your IP address? The other person I'm arguing with uses a Tor gateway or other anonymizing proxies to hide or "censor" his IP address from us. Hell didn't Cain, at the other forums, go on a huge deleting spree to remove his posts? For two people arguing how awful censorship is you seem to be alright with it to a degree.

Illusions, this is a really incongruent point. The fact that almost all of us don't reveal our true identities here is a choice, not an act of coercive government censorship. As Fuzzy points out, some people may be peer-pressured not to have their real identities here (EG I fear social and professional ostracization if my political views were known). But that is at best self-censorship and entirely not the issue being forced by the German and Spanish government.

This forum has (and Atard had) written and unwritten policies about protecting personally identifiable information that is let loose or regretted later. But there is a massive difference between not posting information about yourself and the government actively restricting your right to post anything about anyone.

[LittleFuzzy]

So when Cain deleted his Atari forum posts out of concern someone might find them, would you consider this self censorship when the third party is an abstract concept like Cain's bogeyman government?

I have no idea, I never really understood why he did that.

[CitizenCain]

You seem to have problems with the difference between a right, and an already existing ability a website offers you. I'm stating that Facebook has an already existing ability to censor people, not that we have an inherent, natural right to it, like we do life or liberty. Stop acting like a child. Besides that, this website does offer you the ability to censor my posts at the mod's discretion, which involves using the report post function.

So your position is...? (Other than "censorship" apparently meaning any and everything, I mean.)

If Facebook already offers the ability to limited censorship (untag photos of yourself uploaded by others), why do you seem to be in favor of laws and regulations that would force Facebook to... um, let people do what they already let people do? Not really helping your case there - we already let people do it voluntarily, so now we need a law forcing people to do it as well...?

I have no idea, I never really understood why he did that.

Yeah, in fact, I was pretty sure he didn't really explain his reasons either... but why let details get in the way conflating it into "censorship?"