3 ms·

> Okay but like, I'm not planning on committing a crime and nothing I do now is considered criminal I genuinely don't know and would like to know: are you bein

> Okay but like, I'm not planning on committing a crime and nothing I do now is considered criminal I genuinely don't know and would like to know: are you being sarcastic? I'm asking because to me it seems like you are, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

ianbutler 1y ago
No I'm disarming a common quip from people immediately and effectively.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  [REDACTED]
  - worik 1y ago
    I agree And it is not the state (criminality) that is the biggest risk IMO. The classifying of people into "sheep and goats" is more likely to come from private power. Governments are dangerous, yes. But there are many fewer democratic checks and balances over private power
  - yura 1y ago
    You're literally restating the same point that the original poster has already made in his comment. You're agreeing with him. Seems like you just read the first phrase of his comment and immediately went into an adversarial "are you being sarcastic?" loop. Because the point you made is what came immediately after the part you quoted in his original comment: > [...] but let's play out the worst case scenario and a fascist government comes to power and something I do now is considered criminal and they can place me doing it with this DNA that as the author describes can narrow down if it was me pretty easily.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      No, I read his full comment, but I have a problem with "I'm not planning on committing a crime and nothing I do now is considered criminal" which is commonplace these days to say. I laid it out as to what. So, as for the rest of his comments, such as: "The author also makes this like a weird dichotomy with online tracking, I ALSO care about being tracked on the internet and my personal privacy is pretty important to me in general.", I agree. I edited my comment as it was deeply misunderstood, and I am not interested in having it derailed even further. Maybe another time.
coldtea 1y ago
He is making a hypothetical scenario, and is pre-emptively addressing the bullshit argument "you only care for privacy because you're a criminal/want to commit a crime, innocent people have nothing to hide".
- johnisgood 1y ago
  Oh, okay, not sure why I did not get that from his comment. I suppose I should have asked myself "how come I agree with the rest of his comment apart from the first part?". Because I actually addressed that "have nothing to hide" argument. Oh well!

ianbutler 1y ago

No I'm disarming a common quip from people immediately and effectively.

johnisgood 1y ago
[REDACTED]
- worik 1y ago
  I agree And it is not the state (criminality) that is the biggest risk IMO. The classifying of people into "sheep and goats" is more likely to come from private power. Governments are dangerous, yes. But there are many fewer democratic checks and balances over private power
- yura 1y ago
  You're literally restating the same point that the original poster has already made in his comment. You're agreeing with him. Seems like you just read the first phrase of his comment and immediately went into an adversarial "are you being sarcastic?" loop. Because the point you made is what came immediately after the part you quoted in his original comment: > [...] but let's play out the worst case scenario and a fascist government comes to power and something I do now is considered criminal and they can place me doing it with this DNA that as the author describes can narrow down if it was me pretty easily.
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    No, I read his full comment, but I have a problem with "I'm not planning on committing a crime and nothing I do now is considered criminal" which is commonplace these days to say. I laid it out as to what. So, as for the rest of his comments, such as: "The author also makes this like a weird dichotomy with online tracking, I ALSO care about being tracked on the internet and my personal privacy is pretty important to me in general.", I agree. I edited my comment as it was deeply misunderstood, and I am not interested in having it derailed even further. Maybe another time.

coldtea 1y ago

He is making a hypothetical scenario, and is pre-emptively addressing the bullshit argument "you only care for privacy because you're a criminal/want to commit a crime, innocent people have nothing to hide".

johnisgood 1y ago
Oh, okay, not sure why I did not get that from his comment. I suppose I should have asked myself "how come I agree with the rest of his comment apart from the first part?". Because I actually addressed that "have nothing to hide" argument. Oh well!