3 ms·

well yes! i don't deny, but this is why the thought experiment is fun. i did open my door, but also do i not have the right to still arbitrate what passes my d

by apsurd 3y ago

well yes! i don't deny, but this is why the thought experiment is fun. i did open my door, but also do i not have the right to still arbitrate what passes my dear home's threshold? packet by packet. why not!

epgui 3y ago
Also... what if you requested water? Would you have a right to it being clean? The fact that you initiate the interaction is not on its own free license to force feed you whatever the requestee pleases.
- apsurd 3y ago
  i'm not entitled to receive clean water, but i can reject dirty water. edit: this is fun. i can see that it's actually "filter" the water to still take it and reject only what i deem dirt. and the water provider doesn't like that.
  - epgui 3y ago
    In most developed countries you do have a right to clean water. And depending on the framework you're looking at (eg.: UN), humans in general do have a right to clean water (even if this right is frequently not protected).
  - dylan604 3y ago
    if this wasn't a thing Britta wouldn't exist
dylan604 3y ago
You're free to tell your invited guest that they have over stayed their welcome at any time. It's usually in the shape of "x" if you use a mouse or ctrl/cmd-w if you're a keyboard warrior
ajross 3y ago
> also do i not have the right to still arbitrate what passes my dear home's threshold? packet by packet. why not! You do! But so does YouTube![1] If they don't want to serve you the video they don't have to, either. And that's what's happening here. I'm amazed to see arguments like this up at the top of the page. To take your point maybe more seriously than it deserves: this seems like maybe an argument for socialized media hosting. You're saying the capitalist ad economy isn't equitable or fair or just (or frankly maybe just not doing what you want), and that you think this should be something the government pays for in the aim of general societal benefit. And... I don't know that I completely disagree? But if you want that you need to go there and have the argument, not just demand that the corporate overlord enemy of the week give you free stuff. [1] Or any other media site with adblockblocking, YouTube is hardly alone here.
- epgui 3y ago
  Capitalism and socialism are not all-or-nothing. I don't see people getting upset at the special relationship between government and power companies or telephone companies.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Websites are supposed to work on the basis of a request: you request something, they can decide to serve it or not. But they were never meant to work on the basis of a request that is only satisfied if you accept these piggybacked garbage requests as well and testify that you have consumed them. That's a perversion.

by apsurd 3y ago

epgui 3y ago

Also... what if you requested water? Would you have a right to it being clean? The fact that you initiate the interaction is not on its own free license to force feed you whatever the requestee pleases.

apsurd 3y ago
i'm not entitled to receive clean water, but i can reject dirty water. edit: this is fun. i can see that it's actually "filter" the water to still take it and reject only what i deem dirt. and the water provider doesn't like that.
- epgui 3y ago
  In most developed countries you do have a right to clean water. And depending on the framework you're looking at (eg.: UN), humans in general do have a right to clean water (even if this right is frequently not protected).
- dylan604 3y ago
  if this wasn't a thing Britta wouldn't exist

dylan604 3y ago

You're free to tell your invited guest that they have over stayed their welcome at any time. It's usually in the shape of "x" if you use a mouse or ctrl/cmd-w if you're a keyboard warrior

ajross 3y ago

> also do i not have the right to still arbitrate what passes my dear home's threshold? packet by packet. why not! You do! But so does YouTube![1] If they don't want to serve you the video they don't have to, either. And that's what's happening here. I'm amazed to see arguments like this up at the top of the page. To take your point maybe more seriously than it deserves: this seems like maybe an argument for socialized media hosting. You're saying the capitalist ad economy isn't equitable or fair or just (or frankly maybe just not doing what you want), and that you think this should be something the government pays for in the aim of general societal benefit. And... I don't know that I completely disagree? But if you want that you need to go there and have the argument, not just demand that the corporate overlord enemy of the week give you free stuff. [1] Or any other media site with adblockblocking, YouTube is hardly alone here.

epgui 3y ago
Capitalism and socialism are not all-or-nothing. I don't see people getting upset at the special relationship between government and power companies or telephone companies.
jacquesm 3y ago
Websites are supposed to work on the basis of a request: you request something, they can decide to serve it or not. But they were never meant to work on the basis of a request that is only satisfied if you accept these piggybacked garbage requests as well and testify that you have consumed them. That's a perversion.