4 ms·

"You have no expectation of privacy using public airspace" Replace airspace with "space". Public figure in a public space. They always want the perks without

"You have no expectation of privacy using public airspace" Replace airspace with "space". Public figure in a public space. They always want the perks without the cost. Now, not being harrased is another thing. But not being noticed? (Specially in an airplane) Haters gonna hate. Epilogue: Yes, any publicity is publicity. I am even considering her AI releases, and the acompaning complains, a public stunt.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
> I am even considering her AI releases, and the acompaning complains, a public stunt. What does this mean? Do you mean that she arranged for AI porn of herself to be released?
- toastgrave 3y ago
  Taylor haters have gone absolutely nuts lately but that idea may be the craziest I've ever heard
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  "I am the absolute height of my fame and power, time to.... release a fake sex tape?" Isn't that how you turn from a C-lister to a B-lister, not something you do when you're already at the top of the pile?
williamcotton 3y ago
Do you have an expectation of privacy when you broadcast signals out of your house using the public electromagnetic spectrum? FWIW, I'm on the side of privacy being an overrated concern. I've been hearing people yammer on about it since the Slashdot days. It's well-tread territory and I've heard every argument in support of privacy on forums like these. What I don't see very often is an examination of the negative sides of privacy and the positive side of public information. After decades of privacy, dare I say extremism, we have people who would, eg, do away with public records for private property ownership, which seems anthemic to the very notion of a republic. EDIT: I'm serious, just downvote away, I know that this is an unpopular opinion, but I would appreciate if at least one person engaged in this dialog beyond clicking a button!
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  > engaged in this dialog beyond clicking a button OK. "anthemic" does not mean what you think it means. "anathema" maybe?
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    Yup, that's what I meant! Care to comment on something substantive now?
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      Not really. You wanted some attention; now you've gotten it.
      - williamcotton 3y ago
        I didn't want attention, I wanted discussion. Wasn't that clear?
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        Apparently no one is obliging you.
- boring_twenties 3y ago
  What benefit is there to society or really, anyone to public records for private property ownership? In my city, you can go to a website, type the first three characters of a name, and instantly get the full names and addresses of anyone who matches and owns a home. To my mind, this is beyond absurd. This is a major safety risk with no benefits whatsoever. It's also the #1 reason I continue to rent.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    How do you know who owns the land? How do you prove you own the land and not the person who is trespassing? How do you know who to tax? How do you know who to fine if they dump chemicals in their backyard? How do you know that everyone is being treated fairly under the law? And why should the government have privileged information for all of these necessary records for private property?

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago

> I am even considering her AI releases, and the acompaning complains, a public stunt. What does this mean? Do you mean that she arranged for AI porn of herself to be released?

toastgrave 3y ago
Taylor haters have gone absolutely nuts lately but that idea may be the craziest I've ever heard
SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
"I am the absolute height of my fame and power, time to.... release a fake sex tape?" Isn't that how you turn from a C-lister to a B-lister, not something you do when you're already at the top of the pile?

williamcotton 3y ago

Do you have an expectation of privacy when you broadcast signals out of your house using the public electromagnetic spectrum? FWIW, I'm on the side of privacy being an overrated concern. I've been hearing people yammer on about it since the Slashdot days. It's well-tread territory and I've heard every argument in support of privacy on forums like these. What I don't see very often is an examination of the negative sides of privacy and the positive side of public information. After decades of privacy, dare I say extremism, we have people who would, eg, do away with public records for private property ownership, which seems anthemic to the very notion of a republic. EDIT: I'm serious, just downvote away, I know that this is an unpopular opinion, but I would appreciate if at least one person engaged in this dialog beyond clicking a button!

AlbertCory 3y ago
> engaged in this dialog beyond clicking a button OK. "anthemic" does not mean what you think it means. "anathema" maybe?
- williamcotton 3y ago
  Yup, that's what I meant! Care to comment on something substantive now?
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Not really. You wanted some attention; now you've gotten it.
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      I didn't want attention, I wanted discussion. Wasn't that clear?
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        Apparently no one is obliging you.
boring_twenties 3y ago
What benefit is there to society or really, anyone to public records for private property ownership? In my city, you can go to a website, type the first three characters of a name, and instantly get the full names and addresses of anyone who matches and owns a home. To my mind, this is beyond absurd. This is a major safety risk with no benefits whatsoever. It's also the #1 reason I continue to rent.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  How do you know who owns the land? How do you prove you own the land and not the person who is trespassing? How do you know who to tax? How do you know who to fine if they dump chemicals in their backyard? How do you know that everyone is being treated fairly under the law? And why should the government have privileged information for all of these necessary records for private property?