leibwiht

I am absolutely SHOCKED, I did not expect this in a million years. Why would I ever have any reason to believe the government isn't telling me the truth? And, as a law-abiding citizen, I can't imagine what they'd even want with it anyway. This must have been an honest mistake.

That's very silly. Between all of the people capable of spying on you, it's exactly your own country that has the most ability to harm you. The Chinese government can't arrest you if you're not in China, but your government can.

>I fully support that if I put something on the internet and I am the creator of such content, I should be allowed to remove that content I created if I wish.

I disagree. Whatever is put on the internet belongs to everyone on it, just because you made it doesn't mean you should have any kind of control over what people do with it. Enforcing redaction is obviously impossible but why would you even want to? You'll never get a guarantee that it's gone but also telling other people they cannot access information you originally created is kind of a jerk move.

The reality is that 99.99% of people will never care about their phony "right" to be forgotten and the 0.01% who do most likely do so because they posted something worth wanting to be forgotten, which will be picked up by interested parties and reposted ad infinum because that's what people do with that sort of thing (dox, embarrassing pictures, etc), while the information of the 99.99% who don't care will be lost when Quora inevitably stops existing and then nobody gets it.

>If anything its a battle on both sides, a battle to provide control to the content creators around the content they create.

They don't have any, and they shouldn't either - everything on the internet should be given freely as virtually everything is received freely as well. People should be allowed to retain or repost or modify anything for any purpose, and they pretty much do. Allowing "content creators" to control their work would mean any modification of it unacceptable to them (which encompasses a lot of territory) would be impossible to distribute, making remix cultures like YTP and others impossible. This is completely unreasonable, they should just learn to deal with other people using their work for things they never intended and move on.

I almost never discuss anything important with people outside of extremely close and likeminded friends because of the current political climate. I worry about being ostracized/alienated by them for not believing in the same things as them, so it's not at all worth the risk to actually discuss anything meaningful with them if the outcome might be permanently destroying our relationship.

you missed the part where they broke all my extensions which will apparently literally never be ported due to missing API functionality

i don't want a cultural revolution!!!! please god no!!!!!

Political trickery? In tech? Surely you must be joking.

That would be good, except that if you told anyone about it, they'd probably be horrified.

The title of this is extremely amusing to me because I've only ever thought of online moderators as basically the lowest form of life, almost exclusively petty tyrants and ego-tripping jerks who try to flatter and ingratiate the people above them and are heavy-handed despots to anyone beneath them. Their role as "gatekeeper of ability to communicate with people via the medium under their control" is typically done by encoding their adolescent morality into policy and silencing anyone who goes against the grain or threatens their social standing.

It's actually gotten me thinking a lot about distributed moderation. Wouldn't it be better if access to any particular medium of communication (a forum, an IRC channel, a mastodon server) was federated? Democratized moderation would mean that people could then subscribe to whichever style of moderation they prefer, and people with unpopular styles of moderation (e.g. "ban everything I don't like", the style of the vast majority of forum moderators) would cease having so much power over mediums of communication.

Isn't it extremely obvious that getting someone else to hold the bag for you reduces your own risk?

Alternatively, it's exactly because modern people would be horrified at what those three groups agree on that it is an excellent argument.

The idea that the citizens of the United States are somehow responsible for what their illegitimate government does is ridiculous. The people who actually will have to physically coexist with the refugees and the people responsible for their plight in the first place are not the same, the refugees will live around normal poor or middle class people who do not make major foreign policy decisions and the latter will live in rich gated neighborhoods in expensive houses and will probably never set eyes on a refugee in their lives. Whether it's in the interests of the natives to let in so many people who have a legitimate reason to hate the country they are moving to is also something to consider, this being supposedly the only real concern of government after all.

It's even worse for Tor users, logging into Discord makes me solve about ten or twelve rounds of reCAPTCHA. It's maddening.

One use is for things like OpenGL, where there's no specific library called "opengl", since every hardware vendor provides their own implementation.