Not the point at all. You said that they were helping you. How are they helping you by either forcing you to leave or give up your real name? I don't understand how that is at all helpful. The reason you gave that they're helpful made no sense. If you want to say something on the internet, saying it without giving up your real name is far less dangerous. How are they helping you by attempting to force you to give up your real name on their website?
How so? It exists enough that the average person can't possibly find out who you are unless you've been an imbecile (these people used Google+, so...). Asking someone to reveal their real name just makes things far easier. Surely you agree with that, right? If someone (most likely the government for this example) really wanted to, I'm sure they could invade my privacy by installing surveillance cameras in my bedroom. The fact that that's possible doesn't mean I don't have any privacy at all right now. You're effectively anonymous until you give up your own details (just like you effectively have privacy unless you give it up).
How are they helping you out by trying to force you to expose your real name? Where no one knew who you were before, now they certainly will (if they had their way). That's not helping at all.
you don't say it on the Internet, with your name or without.
Saying it without has fewer consequences most of the time.
I too have always wanted the government to be able to violate any rights it pleases when it claims to be at war. It's well understood, so it's completely okay. It's all to stop the big, evil bogeyman!
Not necessarily. Do anything your boss may find objectionable (anything), and they have the potential to fire you. The same with potential employers. Some bosses seem to believe that human beings should act like complete robots and be 'professional' 100% of the time.
There is nothing disrespectful to an individual when they simply do not have anonymity in public.
Nothing disrespectful according to you. But I'd call it very disrespectful to remove some of that person's privacy just because you disagree with anonymity.
No, privacy is very much involved with anonymity. That's the point. You want to keep your information private.
I merely accept the premise that I don't really have any online.
Then you must live in a very different world than I. You might not be unidentifiable to 100% of the population, but it's close enough that you do have plenty of anonymity (unless you're dealing with an extremely powerful, determined party and haven't taken proper measures to protect yourself).
It seems to me that YOU are the one who is expending energy worrying about anonymity
I don't need to; it already exists. I don't have to use my real name right now, for instance. It's as if you believe that because you don't have absolute anonymity that you don't have any at all! Many people are indeed sufficiently anonymous, and I would oppose any attempt of the government to take that away.
Not my comment about The Cloud. If anything, it's about "intellectual property" rights. And I was talking about local copies.
it's mine and I can sell it and nobody has the right to take it and use it or give away copies for free
If only you could make copies of cars without removing the original and give them away for free... You'd become quite famous, and you could quite possibly solve world hunger. Too bad that you can't.
ethically
The simple answer would be that the person in question believes it is so (if you're talking about morality). I'm not sure how to get in contact with magical moral fairies to find out if that's a valid answer, but we'll figure it out. Someday.
legally
Legally, it isn't. I'm pretty sure copyright infringement isn't legal in most countries.
Not sure what they have to do with this case, though. I mentioned how The Cloud essentially removes ownership of local copies from the end user, and then you brought up cars.
because they figure that they're entitled to them because
What does that have to do with anything? Cars have little to do with the subject of copyright and the like!
"They" just want to take away what remaining ownership I have over the software I've written.
I don't believe you own the copy someone bought. The one on someone else's hard drive. Well, it's a good thing I can refrain from using things I think are garbage (like "The Cloud," where I lose all local access to the data, but that really only works for games).
Unless a person does not have a sense of integrity, I'm not sure why that would be.
That's comical. Human beings typically have a desire to have some degree of privacy. You probably don't want other people to see everything you do. Another form of this is someone not wanting people to associate their real name with comments posted on the Internet. They self-censor and do all manner of things if they feel it could be connected to them. The fact that they don't want to say something does not imply that they are doing anything wrong.
The police can help with that too, when it is a problem.
It will quite possibly be too late.
If it's worth speaking out about, then why is it not also worth facing the possible consequences for?
Because you could be killed (by a criminal, organized criminals, or even by a government) or socially isolated. Not everything worth speaking out about is worth that to everyone.
Personally, I feel that if a person want's anonymity, then they should keep to themselves.
Personally, I feel that if a person doesn't want anonymity, they should just make that decision for themselves. Go ahead and give up all of your information if you wish.
But to advocate for censoring or the stifling of free speech (the result of someone not following this little scheme)? I think that's right up there with the TSA, the Patriot Act, and the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. Collective punishment. All under a vague concept of "responsibility" for reasons unknown.
and if you spend your entire life worrying about or picking apart the small stuff, then all you're going to do is give yourself high blood pressure and probably die a whole lot sooner.
Then stop worrying so much about other people's anonymity.
Rather, I don't have a problem with Google doing this simply because I firmly believe in the principle of personal resposibility
Despite claiming to not support the "nothing to hide" argument, this reeks of exactly that. "If you're not going to abuse it, what do you have to fear? Step up and be a perfect example of my ideal 'responsible' citizen!"
Anonymity allows people to tell others things that they normally wouldn't say, allows people to avoid stalkers, allows people to speak out against perceived injustices when the enemy is perhaps an angry mob, and allows people to avoid getting fired for saying things 10, 20, or perhaps even 30 years ago that seem completely normal to them and other people. If ridding us of anonymity means getting rid of all those benefits, then I'll just accept the occasional troll (The horror!). Most people don't seem to be abusing the privilege in any significant way (that I see), anyway. I'd also not rather resort to censorship or punishing people for their anonymous speech (After all, what would happen to people who did not conform to the scheme?).
This is assuming you're not just advocating this to be done with Youtube, but your arguments could be applied in general. Since your definition of "responsibility" seems to be "needlessly putting yourself in danger," I'll have to disagree.
There is, however, a distinct difference between privacy and public anonymity.
Apparently not, since you do have the option to speak publicly and always remain anonymous. You always did, but the Internet just made this more simple. Like it or not, they definitely have privacy when they're anonymous.
so I simply don't see the importance of it.
Of course. You can't see the importance of it, so it shouldn't exist? I hope that's not the case.
don't pussyfoot around if you truly feel you're in the right.
Yes, because that will always work well. Actual change takes time, and facing a bigoted, illogical populace is no easy task (not one that many people will readily take up, especially for 'lesser' causes).
The fact that a few people may abuse their anonymity is not, to me, a justification to take it away from everyone. I don't care for TSA or Patriot Act mentalities where everyone is punished.
While I hope "bad guys" get caught (depending on what we're talking about), don't catch them at the expense of innocents.
Ah, so it's okay to put racial slurs in source code?
I don't care.
The point is, someone could be offended by the word "the." That doesn't mean that you should have to restrict your use of the English language to cater to them, nor does it mean that you should.
All of this offended nonsense is completely arbitrary. People seem to expect people not to say something that offends them, but when it's something like I pointed out above, they'll arbitrarily decide that it doesn't matter for whatever reason. Maybe they'll even appeal to popularity. These arguments do not appear to be grounded in logic.
Is it possible that you'll upset someone?
It always is, even by using the word "the."
but you should be selective about the people you DO offend
Why? Why "should" I? Because you arbitrarily decided how I should offend people and when it's okay? Let me do the same: there is nothing wrong with this programmer's joke.
This 'big boobs' thing is just a shitty joke that gives programmers even more of a reputation for sexist neanderthals.
I have to wonder if sexism means anything to such people. I'm reminded of the boy who cried wolf.
If it's censorship to ban the ads in the first place, then the content, whether illegal or not, does not matter. You might agree with the censorship, but that doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not forcing you to do anything.
Not the point at all. You said that they were helping you. How are they helping you by either forcing you to leave or give up your real name? I don't understand how that is at all helpful. The reason you gave that they're helpful made no sense. If you want to say something on the internet, saying it without giving up your real name is far less dangerous. How are they helping you by attempting to force you to give up your real name on their website?
No... it does not.
How so? It exists enough that the average person can't possibly find out who you are unless you've been an imbecile (these people used Google+, so...). Asking someone to reveal their real name just makes things far easier. Surely you agree with that, right? If someone (most likely the government for this example) really wanted to, I'm sure they could invade my privacy by installing surveillance cameras in my bedroom. The fact that that's possible doesn't mean I don't have any privacy at all right now. You're effectively anonymous until you give up your own details (just like you effectively have privacy unless you give it up).
Google's helping you out here:
How are they helping you out by trying to force you to expose your real name? Where no one knew who you were before, now they certainly will (if they had their way). That's not helping at all.
you don't say it on the Internet, with your name or without.
Saying it without has fewer consequences most of the time.
Tu quoque. The fact that you deem them hypocrites does not make them wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean they can't criticize you.
I too have always wanted the government to be able to violate any rights it pleases when it claims to be at war. It's well understood, so it's completely okay. It's all to stop the big, evil bogeyman!
Not necessarily. Do anything your boss may find objectionable (anything), and they have the potential to fire you. The same with potential employers. Some bosses seem to believe that human beings should act like complete robots and be 'professional' 100% of the time.
There is nothing disrespectful to an individual when they simply do not have anonymity in public.
Nothing disrespectful according to you. But I'd call it very disrespectful to remove some of that person's privacy just because you disagree with anonymity.
No, privacy is very much involved with anonymity. That's the point. You want to keep your information private.
I merely accept the premise that I don't really have any online.
Then you must live in a very different world than I. You might not be unidentifiable to 100% of the population, but it's close enough that you do have plenty of anonymity (unless you're dealing with an extremely powerful, determined party and haven't taken proper measures to protect yourself).
It seems to me that YOU are the one who is expending energy worrying about anonymity
I don't need to; it already exists. I don't have to use my real name right now, for instance. It's as if you believe that because you don't have absolute anonymity that you don't have any at all! Many people are indeed sufficiently anonymous, and I would oppose any attempt of the government to take that away.
But why worry? There is no need for that.
No, it's about property rights.
Not my comment about The Cloud. If anything, it's about "intellectual property" rights. And I was talking about local copies.
it's mine and I can sell it and nobody has the right to take it and use it or give away copies for free
If only you could make copies of cars without removing the original and give them away for free... You'd become quite famous, and you could quite possibly solve world hunger. Too bad that you can't.
ethically
The simple answer would be that the person in question believes it is so (if you're talking about morality). I'm not sure how to get in contact with magical moral fairies to find out if that's a valid answer, but we'll figure it out. Someday.
legally
Legally, it isn't. I'm pretty sure copyright infringement isn't legal in most countries.
Heard of them.
Not sure what they have to do with this case, though. I mentioned how The Cloud essentially removes ownership of local copies from the end user, and then you brought up cars.
because they figure that they're entitled to them because
Yes, but this is about software.
What does that have to do with anything? Cars have little to do with the subject of copyright and the like!
"They" just want to take away what remaining ownership I have over the software I've written.
I don't believe you own the copy someone bought. The one on someone else's hard drive. Well, it's a good thing I can refrain from using things I think are garbage (like "The Cloud," where I lose all local access to the data, but that really only works for games).
They just want to take away what remaining ownership you have over the software. That's all. Is that so bad?
Unless a person does not have a sense of integrity, I'm not sure why that would be.
That's comical. Human beings typically have a desire to have some degree of privacy. You probably don't want other people to see everything you do. Another form of this is someone not wanting people to associate their real name with comments posted on the Internet. They self-censor and do all manner of things if they feel it could be connected to them. The fact that they don't want to say something does not imply that they are doing anything wrong.
The police can help with that too, when it is a problem.
It will quite possibly be too late.
If it's worth speaking out about, then why is it not also worth facing the possible consequences for?
Because you could be killed (by a criminal, organized criminals, or even by a government) or socially isolated. Not everything worth speaking out about is worth that to everyone.
Personally, I feel that if a person want's anonymity, then they should keep to themselves.
Personally, I feel that if a person doesn't want anonymity, they should just make that decision for themselves. Go ahead and give up all of your information if you wish.
But to advocate for censoring or the stifling of free speech (the result of someone not following this little scheme)? I think that's right up there with the TSA, the Patriot Act, and the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. Collective punishment. All under a vague concept of "responsibility" for reasons unknown.
and if you spend your entire life worrying about or picking apart the small stuff, then all you're going to do is give yourself high blood pressure and probably die a whole lot sooner.
Then stop worrying so much about other people's anonymity.
Rather, I don't have a problem with Google doing this simply because I firmly believe in the principle of personal resposibility
Despite claiming to not support the "nothing to hide" argument, this reeks of exactly that. "If you're not going to abuse it, what do you have to fear? Step up and be a perfect example of my ideal 'responsible' citizen!"
Anonymity allows people to tell others things that they normally wouldn't say, allows people to avoid stalkers, allows people to speak out against perceived injustices when the enemy is perhaps an angry mob, and allows people to avoid getting fired for saying things 10, 20, or perhaps even 30 years ago that seem completely normal to them and other people. If ridding us of anonymity means getting rid of all those benefits, then I'll just accept the occasional troll (The horror!). Most people don't seem to be abusing the privilege in any significant way (that I see), anyway. I'd also not rather resort to censorship or punishing people for their anonymous speech (After all, what would happen to people who did not conform to the scheme?).
This is assuming you're not just advocating this to be done with Youtube, but your arguments could be applied in general. Since your definition of "responsibility" seems to be "needlessly putting yourself in danger," I'll have to disagree.
There is, however, a distinct difference between privacy and public anonymity.
Apparently not, since you do have the option to speak publicly and always remain anonymous. You always did, but the Internet just made this more simple. Like it or not, they definitely have privacy when they're anonymous.
so I simply don't see the importance of it.
Of course. You can't see the importance of it, so it shouldn't exist? I hope that's not the case.
No seriously, I'm asking you, what made you think that people shouldn't be able to express their opinion on some one else's actions?
What? I said that they could criticize it in response to someone else to remind them that someone's actions can be criticized.
don't pussyfoot around if you truly feel you're in the right.
Yes, because that will always work well. Actual change takes time, and facing a bigoted, illogical populace is no easy task (not one that many people will readily take up, especially for 'lesser' causes).
The fact that a few people may abuse their anonymity is not, to me, a justification to take it away from everyone. I don't care for TSA or Patriot Act mentalities where everyone is punished.
While I hope "bad guys" get caught (depending on what we're talking about), don't catch them at the expense of innocents.
you have no legitimate reason
It's nice to know you have the ability to define what is and is not a "legitimate reason" for everyone.
But of course, there is another choice that you did not present: continue posting anonymously.
That they can doesn't mean they should. It also doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it.
Ah, so it's okay to put racial slurs in source code?
I don't care.
The point is, someone could be offended by the word "the." That doesn't mean that you should have to restrict your use of the English language to cater to them, nor does it mean that you should.
All of this offended nonsense is completely arbitrary. People seem to expect people not to say something that offends them, but when it's something like I pointed out above, they'll arbitrarily decide that it doesn't matter for whatever reason. Maybe they'll even appeal to popularity. These arguments do not appear to be grounded in logic.
Is it possible that you'll upset someone?
It always is, even by using the word "the."
but you should be selective about the people you DO offend
Why? Why "should" I? Because you arbitrarily decided how I should offend people and when it's okay? Let me do the same: there is nothing wrong with this programmer's joke.
This 'big boobs' thing is just a shitty joke that gives programmers even more of a reputation for sexist neanderthals.
I have to wonder if sexism means anything to such people. I'm reminded of the boy who cried wolf.
What are you, some sort of psychopath? Flag him!
(it's an industry lobby)
Then pay attention to their actual arguments and policies and debate them on that.
Interesting. Can inanimate objects make comments, by any chance?
If it's censorship to ban the ads in the first place, then the content, whether illegal or not, does not matter. You might agree with the censorship, but that doesn't mean it's not censorship.
I don't know. Are you in pain? I have no idea, but I don't think cluelessness would be painful, anyway.
Would it still be censorship to ban their adds?
The content in question doesn't matter. That has no effect on whether or not it's censorship. But I can't see how child porn is in any way related.