47282847

Based on that perspective, intellectual property is a construct, an illusion, newspeak, and thus “pseudo”.

Humans prefer to survive, and they need to belong to do that. “Like” makes it sound like a preference, where I understand it as a necessity.

I consider it highly recreational to have transformed the previously dead “garden” and “lawn“ with “colorful one-year flowers” and the need to artificially water and all that strange “active gardening“ maintenance but absolutely no insects and no smells into a beautiful wild garden with buzzing insect life and zero artificial watering in only a few years time. The smell of the different herbs and berries alone is doing much for my quality of life. And the flowers that made it are much more “beautiful” and year-round colorful than the weird catalog almost-plastic tulips that the previous tenant replanted each year to have a few weeks of color.

I don’t agree with that framing.

All metadata has been preserved and published, and the sucessor sites to what.CD have long outgrown it; and their successors will again. Anything you find missing, you can request and typically it will be filled within less than 24 hours.

Any time this topic comes up, here and elsewhere, I find that most discussions revolve around different understandings and misunderstandings what people mean when they say “PGP”, and rarely lead to anything beyond that. - no this is PGP no you’re wrong that is PGP and so on and on…

If it was the “hard power” it claims, what is it that makes “it” so afraid? To me, it is fairly obvious that this is how a threatened being behaves, in “childish ways”, before it fully falls apart.

Secondly, and even more dangerous, is to assume you had an identity in the first place. What the author probably mistakes for his identity is an image molded into him by parents, early circumstances, and societal norms and rules at the time. A “violation” of these internalized rules later in life can feel life-threatening, or wrong, and invoke shame, because in early age, belonging was strictly necessary for survival. Later in life, that limits your options, but has nothing to do with “who you are”. You create who you are, moment to moment.

Consider an inquiry when you think “that was not authentic” (by yourself or other). What kind of internalized rules does it touch? Do you actually still consider these rules to be correct and useful today?

The past can and will haunt you, but it’s not real. It’s ghosts. You need to decide how to deal with them. But “lack of authenticity” is not it.

You are the ongoing creator of your identity. And you still want to belong. But maybe not to the church of your upbringing. You’re free to burn it down any time.

It’s not “theft of labor”; the work was already done. If anything it is theft of “intellectual property” (aka “copyright infringement”), if you believe that is a thing, but not of the “labor” that went into it.

My personal take: anyone producing content, everyone’s creativity, is fed by something that others did before. We’re all standing on the shoulders of giants composed of previous generations and their “content’s” distribution and dissemination. I have an immense gratitude for all the labor before me that I was and am allowed to partake; without that, I would be nothing. Sharing information is an act of love; gatekeeping it is short-sighted greed. New technologies have always “killed” previous “labor”, out of which new opportunity grows. I just wished the collected data was public. I hope we all get a mega-leak at some point.

Just because you don’t seem to be interested in the answer - then don’t read it? - doesn’t make the question wrong.