this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
406 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
69098 readers
3105 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The way you're describing it, it sounds more like you believe privacy is a privilege, not a right.
You mean, people who operate a platform where people's privacy constantly gets violated should have a right to their own privacy?
I dunno. I understand your point, but @Telorand@reddthat.com is also kind of right.
Rights are unchangeable based on circumstances. They can never be revoked.
Privlivges can be.
Absolutely false.
They're regularly revoked in all developed countries, mainly as the result of criminal proceedings. Unless you think that prisoners are afforded the same rights as the rest of us?
And the Enlightenment notion that there are inalienable rights endowed by the Creator is about as quaint as the idea that there's a Creator. Rights are ideals that must be continually fought for and expanded, not the gift of a beneficent Alpha Male in the Sky
Exactly. There is no such thing as rights in that context as we have seen governments take them and be force to relinquish them throughout history. Everything can be taken or revoked.
Inalienable rights are a pipe dream of idealistic, naive people who have never lived in the real world where these so-called Rights had be fought or died for.
Just look at the current state of the the UK, their PM proudly stated that 400 were arrested for posting shit online. WTF? In Germany a man was charged for calling a fat, obese politician 'fat.' The UK wants to become a nanny state, for your protection, you see. Same with Germany and others. They are literally and slowly coping the CCP police state model.
In the USA, in some States is now literally Illegal to NOT do business with Israel. But you want to not do business with Canada or Mexico, then go right ahead. Nobody cares. Gee, I wonder who is funding these policians, AIPAC? Yes.
lots of rights get modified, curtailed, or eliminated by the larger society based on misuse or misbehavior or other transgressions.
(or positions of power, etc...)
Or sometimes, just an authoritarian government.
"Live and let live" obviously doesn't work. 4chan has done so much damage to the world that I wouldn't mind seeing their big players in gallows in the town square.
I just want to know who provided them with funding and other support.
All rights are privileges, if we're going to be pedantic. This is evidenced by the fact that they can be taken away. Society tends to operate on an unspoken, collective agreement that certain rights should never be violated, but if they were actually intrinsic, we wouldn't have to fight tooth and nail for them.
I'm a moral relativist, so if someone is happy to abuse their right to privacy to harm others or otherwise take their rights away, especially the right to privacy, I don't feel any compunction to draw a hard line and say that the harmful person deserves to keep those rights in spite of their actions.
Those collective agreements include stipulations for what happens to someone who violates other’s rights. They lose some rights themselves.
I know you don't intend for me to hear this, but I heard George Carlin as you typed that. He has a whole bit on rights vs privileges.
Oh? I'm not that familiar with his comedy, but I probably should get to know it. What little I know I like!
People call him a comedian, and if you define comedy as "something you find funny", then yeah. By that definition, he's a comedian.
But really he's just a philosopher who points out lifes absurdities, and it's the contrast between the truth, and what people feel permitted by society to say outloud that's the basis of his comedy.
He makes you get feelings such as "What? You can't say that!" And then he does a routine, and you think "Actually, he has a point, it feels wrong to say that, but he has a point"
And here's the biggest thing about him that people don't understand. He died in 2008. So people always like to say "Oh, I wonder what he'd say about politics and society today! He'd probably have a whole thing on trump!"
To which I say he already did that. His material holds up because society doesn't change. The same shit that was true in 1844 is the same shit we're dealing with today. Race, power, money, status, war. It's a tale older than recorded history. We don't learn. We keep repeating the same paterns as our fathers generation, just as he did for his fathers generation, just as he did for his fathers generation. And so on and so on and so on. Small details change, but the landscape of human behavior is unaffected. History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
Anyways, here's a bit from him. I didn't watch it but based on the title, I'm fairly sure it's the clip you reminded me of
aka the golden rule
I prefer the platinum rule of humanism, but essentially, yes.
I'd say it's more like a right that's been taken away and they're okay with that.
If you're breaking the law then you forfeit your rights in favor of some much more restrictive ones.
did the moderators violate the law though?
Do you believe liberty is a right? It's one of the first laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and yet I don't think a single signatory nation doesn't incarcerate people guilty of crime. By your logic, I don't think there are any true "rights" in existence, because there are circumstance in which any of them can be taken away.