> Pedophiles were showing up on FSE.
That seems to be a problem with the Fediverse in general. And admittedly, Discord.
FSE meets the FBI
51–60 of 159 posts
Re: FSE meets the FBI
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is whether they're aligned with my views. When it's the government making the distinction, the difference is whether they're aligned with the government's views.
No it's not. The main difference is that terrorists target civilian population as a means to get what they want, and freedom fighters target military.
It's a bad analogy. What if the civilians are themselves perpetuating the regime's views without any sort of independent thinking?
Re: FSE meets the FBI
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish it were so, but the real answer is: because the law doesn't care about your technicalities, they care about what people think/feel, in particular what lawyers and judges think. And lawyers and judges feel that there is a difference between DDOSing a thing offline and politicking your way through the legal system to get a thing taken offline.
The difference is the lawyers and judges do not make any money from the DDOS achieving the same goal. Really, what the law cares about is money. Greed, plain and simple. Yes, what people think/feel factor into this _only_ because when the constituency (read: supporters) are put in an emotionally agitated state, they can be manipulated to believe just about anything, which helps pass things like batshit crazy budget c…
> because when the constituency (read: supporters) are put in an emotionally agitated state, they can be manipulated to believe just about anything […]
That’s democracy, at its most basic. Often, it means people with little access to education, but with a lot at stake, casting votes that go against their own interests. And in the U.S., it’s not as if party leadership on either side truly represents them anyway.
The upside, though, is significant: when power shifts, we usually don’t resort to violence. That simple fact - the peaceful transfer of power - provides the stability necessary for society to function and potentially thrive.
Re: FSE meets the FBI
#54FSE {free speech extremists}, why would one have to be an extremist in country where free speech is enshrined in its Constitutional Law.
Because the US has very unfree speech, despite what someone wrote on a piece of paper in 17-whatever year. In general, the US ranks pretty low on most freedom metrics, except for the freedom to kill with a gun. In general, the more your country has to tell you you're free, the less free you actually are. Many other countries explicitly do not have free speech in their constitution, but something more narrow, like fre…
Could you elaborate how the U.S. doesn’t have free speech?
Re: FSE meets the FBI
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not. The main difference is that terrorists target civilian population as a means to get what they want, and freedom fighters target military.
what's it called when military targets civilians to get what they want?
War. It's called war. In ye olden days, military forces pillaged farms (for food) and sacked cities (for loot). Rarely, there have been short eras of formalized military v military conflicts within various cultures, but this was not the norm. In more modern times, military forces destroys enemy infrastructure to degrade their ability to make war directly target civilians to reduce the # of enemies and hurt morale (supposedly). While sad, one of the facts of life is that war leads to civilian deaths. Usually far more than direct military deaths.
Re: FSE meets the FBI
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the US has very unfree speech, despite what someone wrote on a piece of paper in 17-whatever year. In general, the US ranks pretty low on most freedom metrics, except for the freedom to kill with a gun. In general, the more your country has to tell you you're free, the less free you actually are. Many other countries explicitly do not have free speech in their constitution, but something more narrow, like fre…
Could you elaborate how the U.S. doesn’t have free speech?
It’s illegal to call for boycotting Israel in many US states [1]
Re: FSE meets the FBI
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's it called when military targets civilians to get what they want?
War. It's called war. In ye olden days, military forces pillaged farms (for food) and sacked cities (for loot). Rarely, there have been short eras of formalized military v military conflicts within various cultures, but this was not the norm. In more modern times, military forces destroys enemy infrastructure to degrade their ability to make war directly target civilians to reduce the # of enemies and hurt morale (su…
>While sad, one of the facts of life is that war leads to civilian deaths. Usually far more than direct military deaths.
Fair play to the Ukrainian forces who are doing a fantastic job of minimising Civilian deaths. Road map for the future[?]
Re: FSE meets the FBI
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not. The main difference is that terrorists target civilian population as a means to get what they want, and freedom fighters target military.
It's a bad analogy. What if the civilians are themselves perpetuating the regime's views without any sort of independent thinking?
It's not an analogy, it's the dictionary definition.
Re: FSE meets the FBI
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the US has very unfree speech, despite what someone wrote on a piece of paper in 17-whatever year. In general, the US ranks pretty low on most freedom metrics, except for the freedom to kill with a gun. In general, the more your country has to tell you you're free, the less free you actually are. Many other countries explicitly do not have free speech in their constitution, but something more narrow, like fre…
Could you elaborate how the U.S. doesn’t have free speech?
Freedom of noise might be more descriptive than freedom of speech, in so far as the Western democracies are concerned.
In the US unlimited money has unlimited political power, so free speech, is irrelevant to power distribution, although it might have some academic or personal value for some.
Re: FSE meets the FBI
#60There is really quite a lot to like about this post: 1) Gentleman is doing citizen science figuring out a small part of the FBI's intelligence gathering/spying apparatus. 2) Random Fediverse drama tidbits. 3) Interesting sysadmin tactics for small server operators. 4) This torswats fellow sounds like a piece of work and gets arrested which adds an interesting subplot. 5) Seems like quite an intelligent writer, I just…
notice the incorrect conclusion he makes. the fbi emails him asking for info about a user, with a screenshot that includes a threat of violence. FSE guy jumps to the conclusion that it's just innocent braggadocio (despite the fact that another CEO was murdered just 6 months ago). jump to end of article: guy has already committed countless acts of violence (by proxy).
I'm glad that FSE guy engaged with the feds, but it shows dangerous bias when he sees a screenshot of a threat and immediately assumes that can't be a violent individual.