|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On June 16 2026 10:35 Razyda wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-media-to-be-banned-for-under-16s-in-landmark-government-move-to-givekids-their-childhood-back" The ban will therefore include platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. We do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the social media ban." "These restrictions – which together with the ban go further than any other country – will apply to a wider range of online services, including on gaming sites." - lol steam This has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with controlling adults. Also this gem: "By “communicating with strangers” we mean methods for unknown users to contact and talk with children. This includes gaming services but will not affect the ability for children to participate in multiplayer games online." Did this people even seen online game? How are they planning to do that?
So there will now be WhatsApp groups with AI slop instead of IG or YT. Another job well done
|
Northern Ireland27355 Posts
On June 16 2026 10:35 Razyda wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-media-to-be-banned-for-under-16s-in-landmark-government-move-to-givekids-their-childhood-back" The ban will therefore include platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. We do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the social media ban." "These restrictions – which together with the ban go further than any other country – will apply to a wider range of online services, including on gaming sites." - lol steam This has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with controlling adults. Also this gem: "By “communicating with strangers” we mean methods for unknown users to contact and talk with children. This includes gaming services but will not affect the ability for children to participate in multiplayer games online." Did this people even seen online game? How are they planning to do that?
They can play, or talk to friends but can’t participate in general chat I’d assume would be the idea.
I’m not in favour of all the particulars, but I do see some validity in the goals anyway.
I’d prefer if government(s) pressure lead to some better self-policing, rather than legislation of this kind of form being enacted.
Equally it is worth noting that these kind of moves are something many parents want to see, especially those who aren’t tech literate. There is a demand for it, it’s not something the government are pulling out of thin air, even if one does disagree with their chosen course.
|
On June 16 2026 13:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2026 10:40 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 10:35 Razyda wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-media-to-be-banned-for-under-16s-in-landmark-government-move-to-givekids-their-childhood-back" The ban will therefore include platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. We do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the social media ban." "These restrictions – which together with the ban go further than any other country – will apply to a wider range of online services, including on gaming sites." - lol steam This has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with controlling adults.Also this gem: "By “communicating with strangers” we mean methods for unknown users to contact and talk with children. This includes gaming services but will not affect the ability for children to participate in multiplayer games online." Did this people even seen online game? How are they planning to do that? When you make a statement like this, you are then supposed to explain why you believe it. The question is probably about enforcement. Either you force everyone to somehow ID when they use these services (and thus basically kill any anonymity anywhere), or you do something silly and pointless like a box asking for your age. The first i'd see as a big invasion of privacy of everyone. I don't want every internet service to know my name, and i don't want the government to know which internet services i use. Sadly governments use "won't anyone think about the children" as an excuse for more surveillance in the internet all the time, so this isn't some very far-fetched take. And the second option is basically pointless, because as it turns out, children will just lie and say they are over 18 when they want to use something.
Why is the government more scary then meta, Google and the other 50 companies that already have all the data and more. Especially considering it is currently up for sale and the government could easily get it for a price.
|
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost.
|
On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost.
There's parties with a lot less scruples than government when it comes to that. The law is the promise that your privacy or private domicile will not be invaded by the government without a reasonable motive. By now there's private contractors or even shadowy groups that can do that bypassing local laws because 'whatchyagonnadoaboutit'. It's not like you have a fat open eye over your head when someone's spying on you like when you're sneaking in skyrim.
At some point even your local government's gotta do it because the USA or the Russians or whatever don't give a damn if they want to have a look at you.
It's also how totalitarianism spreads by the way.
|
On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost.
I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit.
|
On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit.
People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true.
|
On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it. + Show Spoiler +
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost.
So damn sick of everything being an app when it could be a website and the primary reasons it is an app is to gain access to more of your personal information and spam you with ads/notifications.
People need to be more mad about it, and I think if they actually understood what was happening they would be?
Browsers are far from totally secure but the difference between what data people find acceptable for their browser to harvest vs the apps on their phone (many people don't even think about it) is illustrative of a generational difference in expectations.
|
On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true.
It’s strange, I trust the government more. They at least have rules they follow and are theoretically trying to make things better. That is not a goal of private corps these days, share price is all that matters.
Yes governments have done lots of bad things and will continue to. I just find it so strange that many people who are terrified of government control are completely willing to submit to big tech. In fact fight against regulation controlling their influence.
|
On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true.
No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father"
|
On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father"
If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do.
|
On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do.
Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close.
|
On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close.
A government that oppressive would have 0 problems getting all that data from those "private" corporations.
E: just to hammer that in, do you think Chinese people look at Tencent and say "well, I am fine giving my data to a private company and not to the government", or do you think there is essentially no difference in China between Tencent harvesting your data or the CCP doing so?
|
On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close.
Do you think a company could get you charged with a crime you haven't committed, and then put in prison for an indefinite amount of time?
I know that in the UK they certainly can.
Do you know about the Post Office scandal? Its well worth a look. That company created more injustice - targeted at completely innocent individuals - than any government in my lifetime, probably all of them put together.
The fact is that a certain group of companies have a 2 way pipeline to the government, and its not only human resources that flow through it. A particular culture, set of expectations and even legal powers are shared more and more between the two sides.
|
On June 17 2026 03:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. A government that oppressive would have 0 problems getting all that data from those "private" corporations. E: just to hammer that in, do you think Chinese people look at Tencent and say "well, I am fine giving my data to a private company and not to the government", or do you think there is essentially no difference in China between Tencent harvesting your data or the CCP doing so?
Actually it would have, because you dont have to hand your data to them, this are optional services, which means that you are not obligated to use them, and in many instance to use them, you just needed email address.
Did you really brought China in discussion whether government is more oppressive than corporations? Bold strategy that.
On June 17 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. Do you think a company could get you charged with a crime you haven't committed, and then put in prison for an indefinite amount of time? I know that in the UK they certainly can. Do you know about the Post Office scandal? Its well worth a look. That company created more injustice - targeted at completely innocent individuals - than any government in my lifetime, probably all of them put together. The fact is that a certain group of companies have a 2 way pipeline to the government, and its not only human resources that flow through it. A particular culture, set of expectations and even legal powers are shared more and more between the two sides.
They literally cant, they need government for the prison part. Yes I remember Post Office, from what I recall reading, any company or citizen could launch their own prosecution, it is some law thing. And even then you still have to go through court, to get prison sentence.
What is a fact is that government holds monopoly for violence, as long as it does, there is no way for corporations to be as oppressive as government can be.
|
On June 17 2026 05:16 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 03:02 Acrofales wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. A government that oppressive would have 0 problems getting all that data from those "private" corporations. E: just to hammer that in, do you think Chinese people look at Tencent and say "well, I am fine giving my data to a private company and not to the government", or do you think there is essentially no difference in China between Tencent harvesting your data or the CCP doing so? Actually it would have, because you dont have to hand your data to them, this are optional services, which means that you are not obligated to use them, and in many instance to use them, you just needed email address. Did you really brought China in discussion whether government is more oppressive than corporations? Bold strategy that. Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. Do you think a company could get you charged with a crime you haven't committed, and then put in prison for an indefinite amount of time? I know that in the UK they certainly can. Do you know about the Post Office scandal? Its well worth a look. That company created more injustice - targeted at completely innocent individuals - than any government in my lifetime, probably all of them put together. The fact is that a certain group of companies have a 2 way pipeline to the government, and its not only human resources that flow through it. A particular culture, set of expectations and even legal powers are shared more and more between the two sides. They literally cant, they need government for the prison part. Yes I remember Post Office, from what I recall reading, any company or citizen could launch their own prosecution, it is some law thing. And even then you still have to go through court, to get prison sentence. What is a fact is that government holds monopoly for violence, as long as it does, there is no way for corporations to be as oppressive as government can be.
You really have no concept of all the personal information these private companies are collecting on you do you?
|
On June 17 2026 05:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 05:16 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 03:02 Acrofales wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. A government that oppressive would have 0 problems getting all that data from those "private" corporations. E: just to hammer that in, do you think Chinese people look at Tencent and say "well, I am fine giving my data to a private company and not to the government", or do you think there is essentially no difference in China between Tencent harvesting your data or the CCP doing so? Actually it would have, because you dont have to hand your data to them, this are optional services, which means that you are not obligated to use them, and in many instance to use them, you just needed email address. Did you really brought China in discussion whether government is more oppressive than corporations? Bold strategy that. On June 17 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. Do you think a company could get you charged with a crime you haven't committed, and then put in prison for an indefinite amount of time? I know that in the UK they certainly can. Do you know about the Post Office scandal? Its well worth a look. That company created more injustice - targeted at completely innocent individuals - than any government in my lifetime, probably all of them put together. The fact is that a certain group of companies have a 2 way pipeline to the government, and its not only human resources that flow through it. A particular culture, set of expectations and even legal powers are shared more and more between the two sides. They literally cant, they need government for the prison part. Yes I remember Post Office, from what I recall reading, any company or citizen could launch their own prosecution, it is some law thing. And even then you still have to go through court, to get prison sentence. What is a fact is that government holds monopoly for violence, as long as it does, there is no way for corporations to be as oppressive as government can be. You really have no concept of all the personal information these private companies are collecting on you do you?
How many are there really though.
At least western companies gotta have a common denominator somewhere.
But yeah, government power is vastly overestimated. They‘re pretty much at the mercy of private companies when it comes to data gathering. Or got to pay for their services.
I assure you, nobody has to worry about the tanks parked outside of Rotterdam.
|
Northern Ireland27355 Posts
On June 17 2026 05:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 05:16 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 03:02 Acrofales wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. A government that oppressive would have 0 problems getting all that data from those "private" corporations. E: just to hammer that in, do you think Chinese people look at Tencent and say "well, I am fine giving my data to a private company and not to the government", or do you think there is essentially no difference in China between Tencent harvesting your data or the CCP doing so? Actually it would have, because you dont have to hand your data to them, this are optional services, which means that you are not obligated to use them, and in many instance to use them, you just needed email address. Did you really brought China in discussion whether government is more oppressive than corporations? Bold strategy that. On June 17 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. Do you think a company could get you charged with a crime you haven't committed, and then put in prison for an indefinite amount of time? I know that in the UK they certainly can. Do you know about the Post Office scandal? Its well worth a look. That company created more injustice - targeted at completely innocent individuals - than any government in my lifetime, probably all of them put together. The fact is that a certain group of companies have a 2 way pipeline to the government, and its not only human resources that flow through it. A particular culture, set of expectations and even legal powers are shared more and more between the two sides. They literally cant, they need government for the prison part. Yes I remember Post Office, from what I recall reading, any company or citizen could launch their own prosecution, it is some law thing. And even then you still have to go through court, to get prison sentence. What is a fact is that government holds monopoly for violence, as long as it does, there is no way for corporations to be as oppressive as government can be. You really have no concept of all the personal information these private companies are collecting on you do you?
Apparently not, or alternatively they don’t care
|
On June 17 2026 05:16 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 03:02 Acrofales wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. A government that oppressive would have 0 problems getting all that data from those "private" corporations. E: just to hammer that in, do you think Chinese people look at Tencent and say "well, I am fine giving my data to a private company and not to the government", or do you think there is essentially no difference in China between Tencent harvesting your data or the CCP doing so? Actually it would have, because you dont have to hand your data to them, this are optional services, which means that you are not obligated to use them, and in many instance to use them, you just needed email address. Did you really brought China in discussion whether government is more oppressive than corporations? Bold strategy that. Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. Do you think a company could get you charged with a crime you haven't committed, and then put in prison for an indefinite amount of time? I know that in the UK they certainly can. Do you know about the Post Office scandal? Its well worth a look. That company created more injustice - targeted at completely innocent individuals - than any government in my lifetime, probably all of them put together. The fact is that a certain group of companies have a 2 way pipeline to the government, and its not only human resources that flow through it. A particular culture, set of expectations and even legal powers are shared more and more between the two sides. They literally cant, they need government for the prison part. Yes I remember Post Office, from what I recall reading, any company or citizen could launch their own prosecution, it is some law thing. And even then you still have to go through court, to get prison sentence. What is a fact is that government holds monopoly for violence, as long as it does, there is no way for corporations to be as oppressive as government can be.
You want it both ways. You can't be afraid of the gubbermint and then avoid the Chinese corporations questions with "but the gubbermint!" My basic claim is the following:
If the gubbermint is going after private citizens and throwing them in jail (or worse) for thought crimes, they aren't going to let something as trivial as not owning the means for gathering data about your thought crimes stop them. Facebook and Google are not going to protect you from a malicious gubbermint.
Simultaneously, Facebook and Google might be evil all on their own. I have no real reason to trust them, especially given Facebook's general stance on data privacy and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. So even if the gubbermint is good, they might sell your data to someone who is not good. Not saying they will, but the protections and oversights on corporations are, almost by definition, weaker than on the government.
Yes, corporations don't have the power to throw you in jail for thought crimes (at least, not yet. we're slowly heading in the direction of that particular cyberpunk distopia). They have plenty of other power, though.
And for your statement that "but that is optional", this all started with people asserting that the government performing age checks would be an invasion of privacy. Those people have the option to not participate in social media in the first place, thus not needing that age check. It is exactly as optional.
|
On June 17 2026 05:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 05:16 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 03:02 Acrofales wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. A government that oppressive would have 0 problems getting all that data from those "private" corporations. E: just to hammer that in, do you think Chinese people look at Tencent and say "well, I am fine giving my data to a private company and not to the government", or do you think there is essentially no difference in China between Tencent harvesting your data or the CCP doing so? Actually it would have, because you dont have to hand your data to them, this are optional services, which means that you are not obligated to use them, and in many instance to use them, you just needed email address. Did you really brought China in discussion whether government is more oppressive than corporations? Bold strategy that. On June 17 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. Do you think a company could get you charged with a crime you haven't committed, and then put in prison for an indefinite amount of time? I know that in the UK they certainly can. Do you know about the Post Office scandal? Its well worth a look. That company created more injustice - targeted at completely innocent individuals - than any government in my lifetime, probably all of them put together. The fact is that a certain group of companies have a 2 way pipeline to the government, and its not only human resources that flow through it. A particular culture, set of expectations and even legal powers are shared more and more between the two sides. They literally cant, they need government for the prison part. Yes I remember Post Office, from what I recall reading, any company or citizen could launch their own prosecution, it is some law thing. And even then you still have to go through court, to get prison sentence. What is a fact is that government holds monopoly for violence, as long as it does, there is no way for corporations to be as oppressive as government can be. You really have no concept of all the personal information these private companies are collecting on you do you?
I do, what I have no concept of, is what this question have to do with the point of contention?
What i contest is whether corporations have capabilities to oppress people matching government capabilities. And really obvious answer is: they dont. It seem like some people here dont exactly understand what kind of power government hold.
Let me explain: If Musk or Zuckerberg declared that you have to login to respective service once a day, you would laugh them of, call them stupid cunts and ignore. If government pass the legislation that you have to login everyday to some service, you will login to said service every day, or you will end up in prison. The 2 are not even comparable.
That is why government is more scary then meta, Google and the other 50 companies that already have all the data and more. Because they lack enforcement power government has.
Edit:
On June 17 2026 08:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 05:16 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 03:02 Acrofales wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. A government that oppressive would have 0 problems getting all that data from those "private" corporations. E: just to hammer that in, do you think Chinese people look at Tencent and say "well, I am fine giving my data to a private company and not to the government", or do you think there is essentially no difference in China between Tencent harvesting your data or the CCP doing so? Actually it would have, because you dont have to hand your data to them, this are optional services, which means that you are not obligated to use them, and in many instance to use them, you just needed email address. Did you really brought China in discussion whether government is more oppressive than corporations? Bold strategy that. On June 17 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:36 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2026 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 17 2026 02:06 Razyda wrote:On June 16 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2026 22:44 Billyboy wrote:On June 16 2026 21:44 Simberto wrote:
I am not a fan of those either, and try to actively be privacy-conscious and generally don't use data-grabbing services if i can avoid it.
What i know is that the German conservatives have been pushing for more net surveillance for ages, always with some very thin veneer that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Chat Control and Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Always, and always, and ever again. Every time it is beaten down, it comes up again through some other channel. Each time it is about child abuse or whatever, but weirdly enough it is always the same heavy surveillance solutions that they wanted a few month ago for some other reason.
Freedom and liberty require constant vigilance, or they are lost. I’m not for it. I’m just saying it’s already lost and people are not upset about it as long as it’s not government. Hell, it the US they fight for private companies to get this and influence them and fight against government regulating it. It’s batshit. People tend to subscribe to the pre-1980 view that it is only the government that can make you a criminal using legal charges, which would give them a unique responsibility if it were still true. No people just understand difference in ability to oppress them between government and corporations. For example if you post something on twitter which Musk dont like he will ban you, government will put you in prison, this are not exactly comparable things. I also havent heard yet about corporation drone striking someone, because "should have a far more responsible father" If you read what I wrote, and then read how you replied, you might notice that you are doing the thing that i say some people still wrongly do. Now, if you read what I wrote you may notice that wrongly is the very word I took issue with. Government can be infinitely more oppresive towards people than any corporation, and thats not even close. Do you think a company could get you charged with a crime you haven't committed, and then put in prison for an indefinite amount of time? I know that in the UK they certainly can. Do you know about the Post Office scandal? Its well worth a look. That company created more injustice - targeted at completely innocent individuals - than any government in my lifetime, probably all of them put together. The fact is that a certain group of companies have a 2 way pipeline to the government, and its not only human resources that flow through it. A particular culture, set of expectations and even legal powers are shared more and more between the two sides. They literally cant, they need government for the prison part. Yes I remember Post Office, from what I recall reading, any company or citizen could launch their own prosecution, it is some law thing. And even then you still have to go through court, to get prison sentence. What is a fact is that government holds monopoly for violence, as long as it does, there is no way for corporations to be as oppressive as government can be. You want it both ways. You can't be afraid of the gubbermint and then avoid the Chinese corporations questions with "but the gubbermint!" My basic claim is the following: If the gubbermint is going after private citizens and throwing them in jail (or worse) for thought crimes, they aren't going to let something as trivial as not owning the means for gathering data about your thought crimes stop them. Facebook and Google are not going to protect you from a malicious gubbermint. Simultaneously, Facebook and Google might be evil all on their own. I have no real reason to trust them, especially given Facebook's general stance on data privacy and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. So even if the gubbermint is good, they might sell your data to someone who is not good. Not saying they will, but the protections and oversights on corporations are, almost by definition, weaker than on the government. Yes, corporations don't have the power to throw you in jail for thought crimes (at least, not yet. we're slowly heading in the direction of that particular cyberpunk distopia). They have plenty of other power, though. And for your statement that "but that is optional", this all started with people asserting that the government performing age checks would be an invasion of privacy. Those people have the option to not participate in social media in the first place, thus not needing that age check. It is exactly as optional.
I am not here to defend corporations, they are however separate topic in regards to this legislation.
Now reread what you wrote in bolded. Hopefully it will help you understand. Yes it is optional, on the basis whether you want to participate or not. Now however you have condition attached, like "ah you want to participate, well then... Ausweis, bitte". Can you please explain how is that "exactly" as optional? because for my untrained eye there is a difference which would suggest that "exactly" is hardly correct word to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
