|
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 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.
Corporations absolutely have the power to pursue you for thought crimes. If you squeeze maximum tolerance out of their services by making use of a grey area, they won‘t ignore it. Usually by also using grey areas against you until a protective intermediate is assigned.
You can also not use social media at all but when others do and they gather data anyway, it won't make a difference.
It's not some cute silly app anymore, it's of security relevance.
|
They also have a massive amount of “soft power” by controlling what you see and knowing what works to influence you. Everyone using social media is being shaped by it, and everyone believes they are not or are barely influenced by it.
The CIA figured out a long time ago that making my change was much more effective through shaping how people think and feel rather than brute force.
|
On June 17 2026 08:46 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 05:35 Billyboy wrote: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: Show nested quote +On June 17 2026 08:44 Acrofales wrote: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.
Umm, that's just an extra security measure. If you're worried about privacy, proving your age is the least egregious thing that is being harvested on social media. In fact, the social media company already knows it. Your argument reeks of "well, I wanted to drive a car but the evil gubbermint made seat belts mandatory, so now I can't anymore".
|
So Farage resigns and everyone else drops out so it looks like its going to be Farage vs Count Binface (if you don't understand this because you aren't from the UK, you have to look him up) for the Clacton world championship.
|
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
It’s unlikely, but if Count Binface pulls this off… He might actually have a shot given basically nobody else is running, it sorta becomes a straight referendum on Farage
I’m sure I’m not alone in finding much of politics depressing in recent times but holy shit I would be re-energised if Count Binface somehow beat Nigel Farage in this by-election
I do have my misgivings about Binface too mind. He’s a Count after all, coming from the noble classes does he really get the issues that us everyday Brits face?
|
On July 08 2026 12:33 WombaT wrote:
It’s unlikely, but if Count Binface pulls this off… He might actually have a shot given basically nobody else is running, it sorta becomes a straight referendum on Farage
I’m sure I’m not alone in finding much of politics depressing in recent times but holy shit I would be re-energised if Count Binface somehow beat Nigel Farage in this by-election
I do have my misgivings about Binface too mind. He’s a Count after all, coming from the noble classes does he really get the issues that us everyday Brits face?
It would definitely restore my faith in the people of England, but I just can't see it tbh.
|
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On July 08 2026 12:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2026 12:33 WombaT wrote:
It’s unlikely, but if Count Binface pulls this off… He might actually have a shot given basically nobody else is running, it sorta becomes a straight referendum on Farage
I’m sure I’m not alone in finding much of politics depressing in recent times but holy shit I would be re-energised if Count Binface somehow beat Nigel Farage in this by-election
I do have my misgivings about Binface too mind. He’s a Count after all, coming from the noble classes does he really get the issues that us everyday Brits face? It would definitely restore my faith in the people of England, but I just can't see it tbh.
Let us hope, hell even a close showing would be embarrassing
|
If Count Binface wins would he be allowed to wear the costume in the Palace of Westminster?
|
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On July 11 2026 01:32 LightSpectra wrote:
If Count Binface wins would he be allowed to wear the costume in the Palace of Westminster?
Costume? :S
|
On July 11 2026 01:32 LightSpectra wrote:
If Count Binface wins would he be allowed to wear the costume in the Palace of Westminster?
No, explicitly, he would not be able to wear the armor. I doubt he would be willing to keep to the bit in a really hot head piece for days in chambers.
I can see him just not having a plan for if he wins and thats fine. A random getting into parliment would be good for government I think.
|
On July 16 2026 05:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2026 01:32 LightSpectra wrote:
If Count Binface wins would he be allowed to wear the costume in the Palace of Westminster? No, explicitly, he would not be able to wear the armor. I doubt he would be willing to keep to the bit in a really hot head piece for days in chambers. I can see him just not having a plan for if he wins and thats fine. A random getting into parliment would be good for government I think.
Just making jokes about bullshit and hypocrisy happening in parliament would probably be a huge service. Write a blog/news article each week and go into interviews just tearing shit (and other politicians up).
Use humor to shame them into shape. :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
