"I am a spineless individual that never heard of anything like 'ethics', but rather stay happily at the developmental level of an amoeba, intellectually"
There's no absolutes there. And I was just making the point that I don't think that there's some universal set of ethics.
Your line of thinking about beliefs and bullshit like that is one the main reasons the developers don't make triple AAA releases on Linux.
Here I thought it was because a grand majority of people use windows, and not because a few people that use Linux could be described as arrogant...
You talk about being open and yet act so closed at the same time.
There's a difference between supporting open source and supporting open-mindedness. Not that I'm saying that people who disagree with you are closed-minded (how does that work, by the way?).
Alleged harm, you mean. And I'd rather that happen than hurt an innocent. To reduce the chances of them harming innocents in the first place, the best way to do that would probably be to require that they go through the proper procedures beforehand.
It's a matter of preference. Even if they may stop criminals, I'd rather them implement the policy that most effectively minimizes the harm caused to innocents (even if it makes it more difficult to stop the criminals).
but I also tell people there's really no point offering ideas on it, as a discussion on it won't go anywhere.
I also believe that, but I still like to voice my opinion.
I don't get why you think I believe there would be no oversight.
I don't think that. You even mentioned oversight and such in your comment.
It just may be AFTER the action instead of before it.
But then the perceived damage, which may or may not have been significant, is already done. For matters like taking down websites (or attempting to censor them), I believe that there's no reason for the correct procedures to not be done beforehand. Unlike with traffic stops, this is actually viable. The website likely isn't going anywhere.
The potential loss of potential profit is a monumentally horrible occurrence. Just thinking about it happening to me causes me to become paralyzed with fear.
You're right. There are likely no perfect solutions. There will probably always be corruption and abuse. However, I still think that we should try to minimize these abuses of power. One of the ways we can do this is with something like judicial oversight. That is the oversight which you speak of.
I don't think that anything they do is okay merely because they could use it correctly.
There is no right to free speech to plot criminal acts.
Did I say that there was? I was merely replying to his assumptions about the motivations of people who supposedly fought for freedom and how he seemed to be stating that this type of speech is bad or unimportant as a fact and not as an opinion.
Why is it that WL hasn't come out with any significant stories on any countries without a free press?
What are you talking about? The leaks aren't always leaked directly to the press.
Is it that there are no stories from Russia for example?
It could be that Wikileaks either hasn't gotten anything that it deems noteworthy or that they have some sort of agenda.
What exactly will stop the powerful from searching out the information implicating anyone large or small and anonymously sending it to a WL that will publish it?
Why would they publish it? How would they even get this information? If the "powerful" want to ruin you, I'm quite sure they can do that without Wikileaks.
If WL is a successful it will be become generalized down to local levels?
I don't think so. I don't think that's viable or worthwhile. I'd be more concerned about the government doing something that concentrated.
Do you even support leaking information against the government's wishes as long as it exposes corruption?
You neen to think more if you don't realize that WL's model is mob rule. The difference between a group of individuals and a mob is anonymity.
I think anonymity is very important if something like this were to succeed. Otherwise, they would be silenced too easily. With the press, all the government would have to do is convince the people (much easier after something bad happened) that they must be censored. Something like Wikileaks is more difficult to do that to.
Having all leaks hidden behind WL would be just as bad for society long term as not being able to confront your accuser in court.
I find it likely that someone like Wikileaks doesn't care about small people.
And the government and others being able to silence the press in that way is exactly what I was talking about. You may say Wikileaks has some disadvantages, but then again, what doesn't? I'm willing to take that risk. As long as they expose corruption, that is.
In my opinion, the most important question is: how many? I'm not implying that these leaks do a good job of exposing corruption (whether they do or do not is another matter to me), but in general, I think if it does do a "good" job of exposing corruption, the lives of the few are a worthy sacrifice (and it isn't even guaranteed that they will lose their lives).
Point taken. But, as I said, this really only happens because of other people (and not because of the speech itself).
If we are even rumoured to violate those norms then we are shutout society.
The problem I have is with the "rumored" aspect of it (not that I think people should be punished merely for not conforming to social norms, but it would depend on what they did). Whether or not we're talking about defamation and slander, I really, really believe that people need to verify things like this (and if they can't, I think they should ignore it in most cases). Believing that all hearsay is extremely foolish, in my opinion.
but far less simplistic than the notion of absolute freedoms
I don't advocate absolute freedom. I advocate absolute freedom of speech.
"Although I disagree that defamation is an acceptable reason for a court to find someone's identity..."
He may know that a court can issue a subpoena to uncover your identity (if, depending on the circumstances, that is even possible), but he may just disagree with them having that ability for something like this.
But defamation can cause significant harm to a person's life.
Only through a potential loss of potential future "gain." And not even because of the defamation itself, but because of other people. They choose to believe hearsay without confirming the information and then act on it.
people would still believe that the target was guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
the outright celebration of violence
What do you mean by this?
Ah, well - you brought up the absolutes.
"I am a spineless individual that never heard of anything like 'ethics', but rather stay happily at the developmental level of an amoeba, intellectually"
There's no absolutes there. And I was just making the point that I don't think that there's some universal set of ethics.
Your line of thinking about beliefs and bullshit like that is one the main reasons the developers don't make triple AAA releases on Linux.
Here I thought it was because a grand majority of people use windows, and not because a few people that use Linux could be described as arrogant...
You talk about being open and yet act so closed at the same time.
There's a difference between supporting open source and supporting open-mindedness. Not that I'm saying that people who disagree with you are closed-minded (how does that work, by the way?).
Good is clearly an objective fact. What you find good must be good, and if someone disagrees, they're instantly wrong.
Nobody gives a shit about mods.
What makes you think that? Even if they still buy the games that do not allow for mods, that does not mean that they do not care about mods at all.
But the harm caused by the website may continue.
Alleged harm, you mean. And I'd rather that happen than hurt an innocent. To reduce the chances of them harming innocents in the first place, the best way to do that would probably be to require that they go through the proper procedures beforehand.
It's a matter of preference. Even if they may stop criminals, I'd rather them implement the policy that most effectively minimizes the harm caused to innocents (even if it makes it more difficult to stop the criminals).
but I also tell people there's really no point offering ideas on it, as a discussion on it won't go anywhere.
I also believe that, but I still like to voice my opinion.
I don't get why you think I believe there would be no oversight.
I don't think that. You even mentioned oversight and such in your comment.
It just may be AFTER the action instead of before it.
But then the perceived damage, which may or may not have been significant, is already done. For matters like taking down websites (or attempting to censor them), I believe that there's no reason for the correct procedures to not be done beforehand. Unlike with traffic stops, this is actually viable. The website likely isn't going anywhere.
The potential loss of potential profit is a monumentally horrible occurrence. Just thinking about it happening to me causes me to become paralyzed with fear.
You're right. There are likely no perfect solutions. There will probably always be corruption and abuse. However, I still think that we should try to minimize these abuses of power. One of the ways we can do this is with something like judicial oversight. That is the oversight which you speak of.
I don't think that anything they do is okay merely because they could use it correctly.
There is no right to free speech to plot criminal acts.
Did I say that there was? I was merely replying to his assumptions about the motivations of people who supposedly fought for freedom and how he seemed to be stating that this type of speech is bad or unimportant as a fact and not as an opinion.
Why is it that WL hasn't come out with any significant stories on any countries without a free press?
What are you talking about? The leaks aren't always leaked directly to the press.
Is it that there are no stories from Russia for example?
It could be that Wikileaks either hasn't gotten anything that it deems noteworthy or that they have some sort of agenda.
What exactly will stop the powerful from searching out the information implicating anyone large or small and anonymously sending it to a WL that will publish it?
Why would they publish it? How would they even get this information? If the "powerful" want to ruin you, I'm quite sure they can do that without Wikileaks.
If WL is a successful it will be become generalized down to local levels?
I don't think so. I don't think that's viable or worthwhile. I'd be more concerned about the government doing something that concentrated.
Do you even support leaking information against the government's wishes as long as it exposes corruption?
he suggested cutting off access for the instigators of the trouble.
And how would they easily accomplish that, I wonder?
"NE1 ELSE FEEL LIKE JOINING ME ROBBIN JB SPROTS IN TEH EAST END AN STEELIN XBOXEZ AN PSFREES(LOL) FROM CURRIES?!?"
Yeah. As long as you don't find that type of speech important, it must not be! It's factually okay to censor any speech you deem as unimportant.
You neen to think more if you don't realize that WL's model is mob rule. The difference between a group of individuals and a mob is anonymity.
I think anonymity is very important if something like this were to succeed. Otherwise, they would be silenced too easily. With the press, all the government would have to do is convince the people (much easier after something bad happened) that they must be censored. Something like Wikileaks is more difficult to do that to.
Having all leaks hidden behind WL would be just as bad for society long term as not being able to confront your accuser in court.
I find it likely that someone like Wikileaks doesn't care about small people.
And the government and others being able to silence the press in that way is exactly what I was talking about. You may say Wikileaks has some disadvantages, but then again, what doesn't? I'm willing to take that risk. As long as they expose corruption, that is.
So instead of fighting to defend a free press we degenerate into mob rule?
Where did I say anything about mob rule?
You shouldn't be blaming the politicians, you should be blaming the voters who admire the leadership skills of these politicians.
Or just blame both.
I'm willing to take the risk of selective publishing. The press seems to easy to silence.
Just as you can also trust those who want to replace those in authority like Assange, hmmm?
Yeah. If I insult the ones who are currently in power, that must mean I support someone else.
Really, though, I just like the idea of Wikileaks. Not sure about Assange, though.
but people will die
In my opinion, the most important question is: how many? I'm not implying that these leaks do a good job of exposing corruption (whether they do or do not is another matter to me), but in general, I think if it does do a "good" job of exposing corruption, the lives of the few are a worthy sacrifice (and it isn't even guaranteed that they will lose their lives).
Or through the loss of their current status.
Point taken. But, as I said, this really only happens because of other people (and not because of the speech itself).
If we are even rumoured to violate those norms then we are shutout society.
The problem I have is with the "rumored" aspect of it (not that I think people should be punished merely for not conforming to social norms, but it would depend on what they did). Whether or not we're talking about defamation and slander, I really, really believe that people need to verify things like this (and if they can't, I think they should ignore it in most cases). Believing that all hearsay is extremely foolish, in my opinion.
but far less simplistic than the notion of absolute freedoms
I don't advocate absolute freedom. I advocate absolute freedom of speech.
"Although I disagree that defamation is an acceptable reason for a court to find someone's identity..."
He may know that a court can issue a subpoena to uncover your identity (if, depending on the circumstances, that is even possible), but he may just disagree with them having that ability for something like this.
But defamation can cause significant harm to a person's life.
Only through a potential loss of potential future "gain." And not even because of the defamation itself, but because of other people. They choose to believe hearsay without confirming the information and then act on it.
people would still believe that the target was guilty.
And I'd say that these people are imbeciles.
A court can issue a subpoena to find out who you are.
And I think that person was just saying he disagrees.
Not everyone in America votes for the exact same candidate. It's just that the majority outnumber the minority.
You can always trust those already in positions of authority...