• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 22nd, 2024

help-circle




  • That’s different from what you said before. (“Money is material resources”). Money can be used to buy material resources, but it is not equal to material resources.

    Believing the latter leads to the assumption that money is somehow sparse (for governments) and governments should e.g. reduce social or infrastructure spendings to finance the military instead of taking on debt.




  • Not even the lemmy instance you’re on needs a license to your content, and it is stored there and displayed for the world to see. Why is that? Because storing and displaying your posts is the very thing you want it to do. That is the service it is providing for you, and you declare that you want it to do that by clicking “send”. They would need a license if they wanted to do anything else with your stuff, which doesn’t directly have to do with displaying your posts in the fediverse.

    The browser is supposed to take my requests and inputs, carry them to the server that I’m talking to and bring back the answer. The mail doesn’t need a license to my letters. That only changes if they want to open them and do something I originally had not intended.

    But you know who claims a license to your content? Meta. Because you’re the product there, not the costumer.

    And let’s remember that the last thing Mozilla got heat for was the introduction of a method to anonymize bulk user data for sharing & selling purposes, as opposed in addition to the granular, extremely invasive tracking that 99% of websites are doing these days.

    Ftfy. It’s never going to replace more invasive tracking and just constitutes yet another party collecting my data.

    I see a company that needs to make a decent amount of money

    Mozilla already makes enough money from passive investment income. They don’t need to make any money from Firefox at all (but they do, it’s from google). They also don’t need to pay their CEO 6 Million a year.

    Edit: Typo










  • A core principle of modern (western) legal states is that it’s preferable to let 10 guilty people walk free before wrongfully punishing one innocent. I’m aware that we often don’t manage to live up to that, but it is the ideal.

    That’s why guilt of the individual (!) has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it’s why certain evidence may become inadmissible if it’s been acquired illegally, it’s why suspect’s may walk free due to formal errors. We try to make absolutely sure that cutting corners doesn’t lead to wrong conclusions, even if it means that we sometimes have to let criminals go unpunished.

    Following that same principle, “it’s possible that there’s a significant majority” isn’t enough. Where’s the proof that there’s not a single inhabitant of Gaza who doesn’t support Hamas?

    Also, since when is it a crime punishable by lifelong imprisonment or death to be hateful of someone?

    And if you and your entire people were held in an open air prison for as long as you could think back, would you not grow hateful of your jailers?

    Last but not least: The logic that “there are no innocents [on the other side of the fence]” applied by Hamas towards the Israelis led to October 7th. If it was flawed then, how is it not flawed now?