khepri
@khepri@lemmy.world
- Comment on Lemmy.world seems to have banned the largest piracy community on Lemmy. 7 months ago:
That’s all well and good, I agree with virtually all you said. It’s certainly the admins’ right to block or de-federate any community they want, based on risk or just because they feel like it, I have no issue with that. It’s simply my personal belief that discussion of crime is not a crime. Direct links to illegal content should not be allowed, but discussion about piracy in general should carry no more risk that learning about murder in a criminology class needs to be banned because it’s teaching people things they could in theory use to get away with murder.
- Comment on Lemmy.world seems to have banned the largest piracy community on Lemmy. 7 months ago:
I think we’re close to saying the same thing, I’m in total agreement that linking to illegal content should be banned, it’s the uneven enforcement of that principle across communities that I think is an issue. I know .world isn’t hosted in the US, so you don’t enjoy broad 1st Amendment protections for free speech, but does anyone really think that discussing crime is itself a crime? If I say “here’s a scenario for how a group of people could rob a bank” what crime is that? If I say “hey I think there’s people dealing drugs on this street corner” what crime is that? And I can of course appreciate a host not wanting to expose themselves to any sort of legal liability, that’s their free choice, they own the server. I’m talking about, on principle, what’s wrong with allowing a community to exist so long as that community does not post or link to illegal content? That principle seems to work just fine for virtually every other topic but when it comes to discussion of filesharing, torrents, and the like, then suddenly the “don’t link to illegal content” principle isn’t good enough and it becomes “we must ban this entire concept for our own safety.” That’s the admins’ right and I have no issue if they want to do that, I just want to point out the glaring double standard between moderating communities so they don’t break the rules and banning communities so they don’t break the rules.
- Comment on Lemmy.world seems to have banned the largest piracy community on Lemmy. 7 months ago:
Linking to or posting content that’s illegal or in violation of copyright should not be allowed, but you don’t have to ban an entire community to do that, you just have to enforce the same rules that are in place for every other community on here. Maybe someone can explain this to me, but this seems equivalent to banning a cybersecurity community because encryption get used by bad actors sometimes, so discussion of staying anonymous online needs to be banned since information about staying anonymous online is “sharing the tools and techniques” that could be used in assisting criminal activity. I understand the need to draw the line at actually sharing copyrighted content, but discussion of lockpicks or linking to sites that sell lockpicks is not equivalent to going around illegally picking locks, except it seems that is exactly the case when it comes to piracy.
- Comment on I hate that I am become this person but: are delivery drivers just allowed to call and say 'please come and meet me' now? 11 months ago:
I think they should really go all out and just text “is it cool if I deliver to you at the restaurant parking lot, I got a real busy night, just come on down and help a guy out?”
- Comment on I hate that I am become this person but: are delivery drivers just allowed to call and say 'please come and meet me' now? 11 months ago:
I think it’s more the nature of the question being “hey is it cool if I don’t complete the delivery as written and just save myself some minutes by doing curbside when we promised door-to-door?” That’s what I’d have to guess is annoying to people.
- Comment on I hate that I am become this person but: are delivery drivers just allowed to call and say 'please come and meet me' now? 11 months ago:
I don’t think it has to be easy, these are tough jobs. So are most jobs, and mistakes do happen. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with expecting the service that the company is offering to actually be performed to completion. I get it’s tough working in something like an oil change place, but promising to do the whole job and then deciding to not do some part of it because “things are seldom so straight forward” would not, I’d hope, be acceptable to anyone involved.
- Comment on I hate that I am become this person but: are delivery drivers just allowed to call and say 'please come and meet me' now? 11 months ago:
I don’t expect perfection, but I do expect companies and employees (even gig employees) to fulfill the basic promises they make about what their service consists of. Surely not too much to ask?
- Comment on I hate that I am become this person but: are delivery drivers just allowed to call and say 'please come and meet me' now? 11 months ago:
Inflation and low wages are caused by people asking door-to-door delivery drivers to actually deliver door-to-door? Guess I’ll go save the economy by hopping out my taxi before they actually get to the airport then to save those folks some time and gas and tamp down that leaky inflation!
- Comment on I hate that I am become this person but: are delivery drivers just allowed to call and say 'please come and meet me' now? 11 months ago:
I really hope app-based 3rd party food delivery just dies soon. The incentives are so fucked up and at cross purposes between the customers, companies, restaurants, and drivers. Like literally no one is getting a good deal out of it except the app itself.
- Comment on Pro-Palestinian creators use secret spellings, code words to evade social media algorithms 1 year ago:
Whew boy, the boogaloo and the kraken would like a word lads
- Comment on Idris Elba: Actors in video games like Phantom Liberty is 'sign of the times' 1 year ago:
Shatner for one, who at the time was arguably still the most-recognizable name in sci-fi TV and movies.
- Comment on Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’ 1 year ago:
Legally speaking, you pretty much consent to being recorded when you step outside your own private space as far as I know.
- Comment on Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’ 1 year ago:
I think maybe the terms used are different, but if the bar is a business owned by a private person or company, and is allowed to say who can be in there or not, set dress code, hours, rules about outside food etc, that’s what would be considered a place of business in the US, and those aren’t publicly-owned or considered a public space as far as the rights of those people in that space. I get that “pub” literally means “public” but they aren’t owned by some government entity, you don’t have a “right” to free access to them, and the rules about what can and can’t take place there are set by the private owners.
- Comment on Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’ 1 year ago:
I wonder about that, because how many things are already recording our activity in some way when we’re out in public? And what would “knowing that you’re being recorded” consist of? Like if there’s a security camera on the corner of a building filming the sidewalk, and I don’t see it, is my privacy violated? If someone posts a sign that says “cameras in use” is that enough? It’s just an interesting question because obviously there are a huge variety of recording devices everywhere these days in public and as far as I know there’s really not much in the way of laws dictating how or whether the device owner needs to warn people who may wander into it’s range in public.