3 ms·

I'm no corporate shill, but corporations are groups of people, so anything you think it's ok to take away from them because they're a group and not a person, yo

by ksdale 5y ago

I'm no corporate shill, but corporations are groups of people, so anything you think it's ok to take away from them because they're a group and not a person, you could logically take away from, say, a union or a farmer's market. If it was wise to make that law regarding facebook, would it be wise to make it regarding an individual as well, or should individuals be allowed to do it because they're not groups? And if individuals shouldn't be allowed to do it, then it's not really about the distinction between corporations and individuals.

rhacker 5y ago
So backing up out of that for a second. Are you saying there are individuals (not part of a group, or a corporation) that are dead set on making computer peripherals that require an account?
- ksdale 5y ago
  Is that relevant? I think the analysis should revolve around whether they should be allowed to, and not whether we can just ban it because nobody wants to do it anyway. I don't think that's a good way to make rules.
tpxl 5y ago
The connection between corps and unions/farmers markets is clear to me, but the jump between unions/farmers markets to individuals is not. Yes, I do think groups should not have rights individuals have. It's more about the scale than the amount of people, and the line between that gets blurred when an individual can control thousands of PCs.
- ksdale 5y ago
  For example, individuals are entitled to freedom of assembly, the ability to, say, gather and push for better labor conditions. If we restrict the rights of groups, would the government suddenly say, "Well sure, each of you can ask for labor rights individually, but you can't gather together to do it, because groups shouldn't have the same rights as individuals." I suppose, I don't think the line between groups and individuals is quite so clear. When does a group become "greater" than the individual in a way that requires the individual to give up certain rights?

by ksdale 5y ago

rhacker 5y ago

So backing up out of that for a second. Are you saying there are individuals (not part of a group, or a corporation) that are dead set on making computer peripherals that require an account?

ksdale 5y ago
Is that relevant? I think the analysis should revolve around whether they should be allowed to, and not whether we can just ban it because nobody wants to do it anyway. I don't think that's a good way to make rules.

tpxl 5y ago

The connection between corps and unions/farmers markets is clear to me, but the jump between unions/farmers markets to individuals is not. Yes, I do think groups should not have rights individuals have. It's more about the scale than the amount of people, and the line between that gets blurred when an individual can control thousands of PCs.

ksdale 5y ago
For example, individuals are entitled to freedom of assembly, the ability to, say, gather and push for better labor conditions. If we restrict the rights of groups, would the government suddenly say, "Well sure, each of you can ask for labor rights individually, but you can't gather together to do it, because groups shouldn't have the same rights as individuals." I suppose, I don't think the line between groups and individuals is quite so clear. When does a group become "greater" than the individual in a way that requires the individual to give up certain rights?