birdwing

joined 3 weeks ago
[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Remember when someone posted Musk's (public) flight data? When Musk said anything could be public?

And then Musk removed the flight data.

Rules for thee but not for me. They're bloody hypocrites.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago

Based and privacypilled

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Proposal: a law that prohibits them from doing so, overriding US law.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

It is wrong, because if you have the "choice" to, they almost certainly will be put up as a preset. And it enables your privacy to be compromised. Think of it like this: instead of having less choice by not having an option to connect to Microsoft/Google/etc., you get more liberty, privacy, and that gives you more choice to say what you want. Remember the Github dev who got blocked by Microsoft for his criticism? Exactly. It can happen to you too. And that's not something that will just happen to high profile people, but everyone, unless if we stand against it.

For-profit is not a silly thing to object to. When the software has profit as motive, they gain an incentive to still snoop on data and sell it.

And that is exactly why privacy is necessary for all. Oligarchs love privacy (except for others), so they can hide their tax avoidance, and steal people's hard work.

All who are not oligarchs, be they communist/socialist, christian democrat, liberal, or whatever else, would stand to benefit from privacy. And it is precisely for that reason that you calling out it as communist makes no sense.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

most of those fall under wealth bootlickers :3

hate groups? benefit the oligarch by dividing people, and directly suppress normal people that struggle for mankind's benefit.

terrorist organisations? the definition of 'terrorist' is someone other than the state who commits violence to sow fear. And if the fear is in the rich, are the terrorists then the problem? The definition is iffy.

organised crime? are people who organise lgbt readings in russia, organised crime? i think this definition is too vague.

drug cartels? yes, if they're drugs that don't help people's lives, and commit violence against innocent people. They then benefit the oligarch who plays out people against each other.

human traffickers? if they profit off it, use violence, and don't have the goal of helping refugees find a safe home from state violence -- then they benefit the oligarch, cus they profit.

rapists and serial offenders? yes, these benefit the oligarchs, literally just look at Trump and Epstein.

Release the Unaltered Epstein Files, Trump

cult leaders? Yes, they work to subject people to leadership. Fuck that; liberation is no hierarchy! No gods, no masters. Organised religions work together with oligarchs to subjugate people.

oligarchs and kleptocrats (the 'corrupt' can be left out since it's synonymous); the root of all evil. These only ever seek profit, profit, profit. They will not stop until the last person has been coerced into the killer machine of capitalism. Once the last capitalist and authoritarianist is dead, the world shall be liberated.

military juntas and death squads? (rogue, again, here is synonymous) These also benefit oligarchs by making it easier to manipulate a people, through just a few leaders. And these kill people at random for fear, making them actual terrorists, as opposed to people who kill the rich.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wouldn't LibreOffice be a better option for replacing Google Docs?

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Sometimes I think those trad people need sterilisation. They're indoctrinating and abusing their children for religion...

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes, you are the brute without morals here. Or more precisely, you also have your morals, but you might not understand where others come from.

Kids don't watch porn that early. And besides, I think it's more harmful to try to censor people's internet

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Moving goalposts is a thing. It's never gonna be from 0 to 100, it'll move step by step. No thanks.

Whom do we harm with having a wank? Nobody. So stop worrying about it like an evangelist. Our body and our internet, our choice!

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Identity theft. Because it is: they will steal your identification data and sell it to the highest bidder.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hmm, that actually sounds pretty plausible. I think it's also being propped up and bought (read: corruption) by Thiel's fascist company.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

Hail LibreOffice!

view more: ‹ prev next ›