4 ms·

I think using the cultural stigma of a "terrorist act" to make an analogy like that isn't very productive. It's as effective as saying "People also do bad thin

I think using the cultural stigma of a "terrorist act" to make an analogy like that isn't very productive. It's as effective as saying "People also do bad things for ideological reasons", simply stating as fact that violating copyright is bad ignoring any of the nuance that was provided.

jedberg 3y ago
Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Clicking on ads consumes actual real world resources of the ad network (which is passed on to the advertiser). This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale.
- brokenmachine 3y ago
  Attaching unwanted ads and tracking to desired content also consumes actual real world resources for people who don't want ads. Seems to go both ways.
- memefrog 3y ago
  >Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Of course it does. It violates their rights. > This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale. "Stochastic terrorism" is a nonsense concept anyway.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    Your intellectual inconsistency is amusing. You believe in intellectual property but not stochastic terrorisim, even though both are just created concepts to explain things that people believe exist.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      That is a truly bizarre thing to say. Do you believe that everything with a name exists? If I say the words "the great replacement" does that mean that it actually exists? If I say "COVID-19 lab leak" does that confirm the truth of that theory too? I tried saying "my enormous wealth" a few times, but I'm still not enormously wealthy. Do you have any tips for how I can learn to make things true just by referring to them? To be more serious: "stochastic terrorism" is nonsensical because it attributes to a person some act that is not his responsibility. It doesn't matter how large your audience is or what you suspect they might do with the information: saying "this hospital performs masectomies on teenage girls" will never be a terrorist act, even if some audience member allegedly called in a bomb threat later. In no way, shape, or form is that act attributable to him. If you say something, and someone reacts by doing something, that is not your fault, and never will be.
    - dooglius 3y ago
      Does someone have to believe in all concepts or in no concepts whatsoever?
- CapsAdmin 3y ago
  I confused what you were referring to, but I think it works with either adnauseum or copyright. I'm not sure what your definition of terrorism is. It sounds like it's defined as stealing resources from someone else? The definition of terrorism is not very defined, but I would think it generally means to cause fear in the general public for political gains. Maybe the general public can be replaced by an ad network theft induces fear, but then I think we're on vague territory. I think for me the main point is just that harm can be justified for good and bad reasons, so we have to discuss how it's harmful and why it's justified or vice versa, rather than just saying it's harmful therefore bad. In general I'm for "harming" businesses that I believe are actively harming society. I would be more on the side of trying to target their incentives rather than any individual person though. Sanctions, penalties and tax disincentives supposedly do this.
- nradov 3y ago
  There's no such thing as stochastic terrorism. It's an imaginary problem invented by people looking for a plausible excuse to restrict freedoms that they don't like.

jedberg 3y ago

Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Clicking on ads consumes actual real world resources of the ad network (which is passed on to the advertiser). This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale.

brokenmachine 3y ago
Attaching unwanted ads and tracking to desired content also consumes actual real world resources for people who don't want ads. Seems to go both ways.
memefrog 3y ago
>Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Of course it does. It violates their rights. > This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale. "Stochastic terrorism" is a nonsense concept anyway.
- jedberg 3y ago
  Your intellectual inconsistency is amusing. You believe in intellectual property but not stochastic terrorisim, even though both are just created concepts to explain things that people believe exist.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    That is a truly bizarre thing to say. Do you believe that everything with a name exists? If I say the words "the great replacement" does that mean that it actually exists? If I say "COVID-19 lab leak" does that confirm the truth of that theory too? I tried saying "my enormous wealth" a few times, but I'm still not enormously wealthy. Do you have any tips for how I can learn to make things true just by referring to them? To be more serious: "stochastic terrorism" is nonsensical because it attributes to a person some act that is not his responsibility. It doesn't matter how large your audience is or what you suspect they might do with the information: saying "this hospital performs masectomies on teenage girls" will never be a terrorist act, even if some audience member allegedly called in a bomb threat later. In no way, shape, or form is that act attributable to him. If you say something, and someone reacts by doing something, that is not your fault, and never will be.
  - dooglius 3y ago
    Does someone have to believe in all concepts or in no concepts whatsoever?
CapsAdmin 3y ago
I confused what you were referring to, but I think it works with either adnauseum or copyright. I'm not sure what your definition of terrorism is. It sounds like it's defined as stealing resources from someone else? The definition of terrorism is not very defined, but I would think it generally means to cause fear in the general public for political gains. Maybe the general public can be replaced by an ad network theft induces fear, but then I think we're on vague territory. I think for me the main point is just that harm can be justified for good and bad reasons, so we have to discuss how it's harmful and why it's justified or vice versa, rather than just saying it's harmful therefore bad. In general I'm for "harming" businesses that I believe are actively harming society. I would be more on the side of trying to target their incentives rather than any individual person though. Sanctions, penalties and tax disincentives supposedly do this.
nradov 3y ago
There's no such thing as stochastic terrorism. It's an imaginary problem invented by people looking for a plausible excuse to restrict freedoms that they don't like.