CRConrad

> AfD along with some private news networks backed by the likes of Telekom are really pushing to abolish it.

That's how we can be sure it's worth keeeping.

> There is very little chance that Meta is doing algorithmic political adjustments at the behest of Zuck.

It might seem so, if one hasn't read "Careless People: A Story of Where I Used to Work", by Sarah Wynn-Williams.

Yeah, OK, the mental illness bit may have been a bit OTT. (But you had brought that history up yourself earlier.) The bad faith part, though: Not to get the obvious analogy certainly felt that way to me. I still have trouble seeing how one couldn't, in good faith, get something so obvious.

But anyway... So, now that we're all on the same page about how circumstances can change from one point in time to another — do you feel up to admitting that your argument about "They did it one way then and another now!" is bogus, and retracting it?

___

[Edited: Changed erroneous "one" to "on".]

[Sigh, edited again: Changed erroneous "form" to "from".]

And I don't care to, so I'll say it as neutrally as I always do. The unsupported claim here is yours:

> A key that is used to decrypt copyrighted material being /itself/ copyrighted means it cant be distributed which is what we see.

But nobody (at least in this sub-thread) has shown that the keys are copyrighted. All we know is that they apperently "can't" be distributed. You are proffering one explanation as to why, but you haven't supported it.

"Key or certificate could be used to decode encrypted copyrighted material" is presumably why distributing the keys is banned by the DMCA[1]; "key or certificate is copyrighted" is apparently not true, because they can't be[2]. Those are, or are at least purported to be, statements of fact, so asking for examples is irrelevant; kind of like "So you claim two plus two equals four? But you haven't provided an example!".

The immediate consequence, which was presumably what the previous poster was trying to show (and trusted that people would understand the obvious implication), is that distributing these keys may well be a violation of the DMCA, but not of copyright per se. So even if one is all for copyright, but does not support the DMCA as a means to protect it — which, AFAICR from online discussions back when the DMCA was first legislated and implemented, is potentially quite a lot of people — one would be ethically justified to distribute the keys. Unless you can show that they actually are copyrighted.

AFAICS you haven't. So the statement that stands alone and unsupported seems to me to be yours.

___

Edited: Got the attributions wrong, hopefully correct now.

[1]: As per user "pseudalopex", in the GP comment.

[2]: As per user "wmf", a bit upthreads. Because they're just mathematical artifacts and contain no artistic / intellectual human input, AIUI. (Addition on edit: Slå upp "verkshöjd".)

His mom isn't confused. They didn't have juice last week, they do now. Somebody went and got some in the mean time: i.e, circumstances changed.

Not to understand this obvious intent, or not to see how the same could apply to the Brazilian election is a sign of either being confused yourself, or... Something worse.

Really, honestly: That post of yours from a couple of years ago that someone linked to in this thread — you should take that advice.

the Overton Window in the US is so far to the right that it's not even on the wall any more. It's just hanging in space, off somewhere outside the whole building (aka physical reality).

You misspelled Faceboot.

> ...average Elias will also get no or next to no negative consequences making a very similar mistake on average Elias's scale.

1) The same consequences are probably a lot less "next to no" on Elias's scale.

2) As Uncle Joe is said to have said, "enough quantity becomes a quality of its own". Google-scale chopping down trees is not just a little bigger, it's so much bigger that it becomes a fundamentally different thing than Elias-scale wrong composting.

So yes, anything short of shutting down any plans for new Google data centers in Finland[1] is Google getting favourable treatment; that claim is not incorrect.

___

[1]: And preferably shutting down any existing ones, too. Just so they, and others like them, maybe will learn.

> ...a non-story if it happened 5 years ago

Why would that in itself make it a "non-story"?

Are you talking about politicians, or actual employees?

If the latter: Yes, that is actually stupid, but the stupidity lies not in the term limits for politicians, but in the idea that public servants are employed on the grounds of party affiliation.[1]

But replacing large swathes of competent higher officials every time you change government... The only country I know of for sure that does that is the USA. Are you saying that's the way it works in Brazil, too?

___

[1]: Sure, to some extent it exists everywhere, but that's usually only a few sincure posts for old politicians removed from any actual influence by being "promoted diagonally left-upwards". (See, for example, the post of "landshövding" in Sweden.)

Obviously, as can be seen from the word "International" in the name.

(See also: "World League", etc, etc ad nauseam.)

Why would you necessarily need to be "active" in the first place?

If you're obviously invited only as a "seat filler" (and why else would the meeting be boring?), I see nothing wrong with being passive.