Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
Republicans have such a fucking easy job.
Run on "Government doesn't work! We need less of it!" and then once you have the job, do fucking nothing except obstruct, obstruct, obstruct to make sure jack shit gets done so you can turn around and say "See, the government doesn't work, we need to get rid of it!"
And for the cost, they get to retire with nice government pensions and better healthcare than any of their voters will ever see.
I hate this fucking planet.
This is not just a partisan issue. As the article points out, its been like this for 30 years. The Dems failed to pass any meaningful legislation too.
It's because it makes gobs of money that both parties are taking, and it also kind of projects US power to other countries since US tech is doing most of the data collection.
The only Dem I know who even bothers to talk about this stuff is our local senator Ron Wyden. Apart from that, most seem satisfied with the status quo.
It just doesn't resonate with voters.
I think many voters "feel" tech getting junky, but the connection to why is just way too complicated for most to dig into. It's not a direct line like tipping waiters or getting abortions.
the dems failed to pass any meaningful legislation
Yeah those tens of millions of people utilizing the ACA sure don’t count. I guess the infrastructure bill didn’t happen, I’ll go tell my city to return the funding it’s using right now to repair roads and sewerage issues that have long been neglected until that money came.
I mean seriously? Nothing meaningful? Let’s just skip the part where you give me some dross about how the ACA was Republican due to compromise blah blah blah we all know but it wouldn’t exist at all without Obama and the democrats expending an enormous amount of political capital. Like it or not, to not call it meaningful is ridiculous.
What does that have to do with internet privacy legislation?
Relax bidey-bro, this thread is about data privacy laws, not general stuff. The only relevant one I’m aware of is DMCA, which was in fact signed into law by Bill Clinton.
bidey-bro
You’re trying too hard
@SteveFromMySpace @[email protected]
I just immediately block people who use terms like bidey-bro.
Life it too short and my feed is too long.
As if surrounding yourself in an echo chamber of sycophants is the better solution. It sure works well for MAGA folks.
It’s unbelievable how any time somebody starts complaining about “echo chambers“ it’s basically an argument for how they are entitled to somebody else’s attention.
When you go out for drinks or dinner or some other social activity, do you always make sure to invite people with beliefs and practices that are diametrically opposed to your own? Do you not mostly keep friends in your orbit who largely agree with you and your values?
I have family I don’t agree with. I have colleagues I don’t agree with. Yes, I also have friends I don’t agree with. But these echo chamber arguments are almost exclusively used by the right to say “you have to listen to me because it’s a moral imperative” then whenever someone like me tries to show them the door, they scream about echo chambers as if they aren’t the problem.
No, we don’t have to keep these people around. I don’t have to listen to every opinion or argument that I disagree with every single time. Sometimes I’m just going to tell people to fuck off and hang out with people who aren’t actively trying to upset me.
Great analogy but how does that even remotely apply to this scenario where you replied to someone else's comment and then didn't like the response followed by someone telling you to just block people when they aren't part of your in-group of folks who think exactly like you?
This is social media not a dinner party and this is exactly how people wind up in social media echo chambers.
I can decide to block someone after they reveal more of themselves or otherwise turn nasty. You’re still reinforcing a false moral imperative. I am allowed to have communities and spaces that are primarily people I agree with. I don’t need everything to be challenging me all the time.
Seems pretty sleazy if you're the one instigating the challenge and then running away by blocking someone if they respond to you. Furthermore, you created an entire strawman argument with your initial reply as if the Democratic party is filled with a bunch of saints that are above reproach. This is exactly what MAGA supporters do when people criticize Trump which is why I bring up sycophants and echo chambers because that's exactly how those people wound up in the state they're in.
I'm with Shepard on this one, even if he's being a jerk about it.
Lemmy is a filter bubble, an echo chamber. You miss information that would be personally important to you, but is excluded because it doesn't fit with the US Democrat party line, and the very specific part of it Lemmy's politically active base likes.
Like, I'm a raging Trump hater, but I'm kind of aghast at how many knee jerk reactions (like, to me, your original reply) I get when I imply something vaguely critical about the Democrats.
If you spend your entire time and get all your information on lemmy then you have a bigger issue beyond some echo chamber internet communities. Really and truly.
Demonizing spaces for like minded people to congregate doesn’t solve that.
Demonizing spaces for like minded people to congregate doesn’t solve that.
If this is a polite way of saying "go somewhere else to lightly criticize democrats," I don't accept that. I can at least hope Lemmy can do better, and try to change it.
Of course having a good information diet is critical. But that's besides the point? I don't think this thread would be a thing if all our information diets were great.
That’s an absurd interpretation of what I said. There is no way you actually think that’s what said.
And for the cost, they get to retire with nice government pensions and better healthcare than any of their voters will ever see.
They get way more than just that if they are good little piggies for the ownership class. They get "advisory" positions and board membership that give massive salaries for doing fuck-all as they already did their "job" in government. Totes not a bribe of course, because technicallyyyyy....
Hence, why they call folks who actually want to make government do stuff "rubes" back home.
Congress is an organ of the ruling class and always has been. When they (rarely) do something seemingly against ruling class interests, it is still a strategem to best keep the capitalism boat afloat (it tries to sink every 5-10 years).
Sure, Congress is corrupt, but it always has been. The system is working more or less as designed. And if you want to oppose this design, the system is also designed to fight you to the death. And funneling all of your capacity into sheepdog voting is how your masters tell you you should oppose them. So if you want to oppose this system, you must become informed as to how it functions and join up with like-minded individuals to develop actually effective means of resistance.
They will take it seriously if their personal information becomes visible.
I mean, it has, a bunch of times. And they haven't so far.
But I agree, in principle. When they're impacted, in a way they actually understand, things may get better.
I'm 99% sure there are laws that specifically protect politicians from having their information exposed.
I don't know if this is true but I won't be surprised
Contact Senator Ron Wyden - he’s doing good work on this front. Show him some support
Internet and associated technology has become the dominant force in our world and we have next to know regulation on it and the stuff we have is targeted at individuals rather than corporations like it should be. I hat to through youtube links around but this guy has a pretty good one on price fixing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdWSUIdtu6E
84% of Americans want something they are unwilling to vote nor do anything for, but they sure as hell will complain about it.
Voting will fix it, it's worked so far. /s
Decisions are made by those who show up.
No they're made by those who possess economic power. That's a tiny sliver of the US population.
It's elections are nothing than political theatre, with a side goal of creating the illusion of democracy, and building consent for the dictatorship.
That's defeatism. You especially should believe in the collective. We are not just innocent little playtoys of powers beyond our comprehension. If that were the case and we had no free will, then what's the point of living? If you truly believe you control nothing in your life, then why still walk this earth?
A single ant cannot destroy a tree. It's the work of countless ants that achieve that.
Why would the capitalists let you vote away their wealth or power? What incentive do they have to do that?
That's defeatism.
No, it's a historical reality that voting is not an effective method to undo class society. Even the ancient greeks knew (before the Marxists rediscovered this and dealt their own death blows to representative government in the 1800s) that voting in an aristocracy is nothing more than theatre, because only the rich and entrenched families have the resources to fund campaigns, and get themselves elected (or appoint political puppets to do their bidding).
Political power is a reflex of economic power, and the rich will not allow you to use the system they control, to undo it.
single ant cannot destroy a tree. It's the work of countless ants that achieve that.
Many socialist / communist parties did just that, and they weren't deluded enough to try to accomplish it via voting in a system controlled by the ruling classes.
So you're completely ignoring the rise of fascism due to voting? The second world war happened because a bunch of nazis stormed the German parliament and took control of it by force? What do you think populism does?
Of course you can change the system from within. Le Pen, Höcke, Meloni, Wilders, Trump, and so on, they aren't "part of the establishment". They latched onto a populist narratives, got financial aid from the radicals in their countries, and gathered votes to get themselves into offices .
The left-wing parties in France united to pose a unified front against the national assembly (le RN) in France. And it worked. They got the relative majority to vote for them, but as soon as they won, they were beset by infighting. Such is the common reality of left wing parties - they are their own greatest enemy.
Either you chose to ignore it or you were unaware, but the latter is much less probable, so I'm going to say you chose to in order to fit your narrative of "voting doesn't matter" and imagine that class warfare (or how Marx would put it "Klassenkampf") is the only way out.
They want comprehensive legislation that everyone agrees on. It isn't asking much.
I also want a dragon.
"I want"
does nothing for it
we can have the patriot act but for like online. That's wicked. People so smart.
