4 ms·
I think you're making my argument out to be something else. I'm not saying we can only have laws that are bulletproof. But the fact they think links and text ar
by vasco 2y ago
I think you're making my argument out to be something else. I'm not saying we can only have laws that are bulletproof. But the fact they think links and text are different things, makes me _know_ they don't understand what they are doing. So I know their interpretation of the risk/reward is also not good and it's annoying to have freedoms taken away by dummies. If I get the impression they are smart and looked into it I'd swallow it way easier.
- arp242 2y ago> the fact they think links and text are different things I don't think anyone really thinks that.
- vasco 2y agoMaybe I have some misunderstanding from the draft legislation. Can you explain how one can prevent users from sharing links while keeping them able to share text?
- arp242 2y agoYou can't. But like I said: of course it's not 100% foolproof. Going from that to "they think links and text are different things" is quite a leap.
- InCityDreams 2y agoFirst message: p 0 r n, s i 7 e Second message: dot Third message: come on over. Forth message: Sorry my mistake, organising the house. After a while the second, third and fourth won't be required. Jeeze...we learned obfuscation fucking years ago (torrenting was punishable then, probably is still, and a few people may be made examples of, by ip tracking etc as subscribing becomes more disliked).