3 ms·

I don't think anonymous companies make sense ethically, and they're demonstrably causing harm to society by enabling corruption and money laundering. To addres

I don't think anonymous companies make sense ethically, and they're demonstrably causing harm to society by enabling corruption and money laundering. To address your concern, I think the problem is that a) the address is publically available in your country, and b) your police is so violent that they weaponize prank calls to lethal threats. That's an issue of shit policing. The idea that you can exercise power in society and have zero accountability and demand to stay anonymous is either a) an cyberpunk fantasy, or b) a cleptocrat's dream.

charcircuit 1y ago
>by enabling corruption and money laundering. The owner of the company being anonymous or not is not relevant here. These things can be done by people other than the owner and these people are already anonymous. >That's an issue of shit policing. It's an issue with every service. You can get prank pizzas, prank Uber eats, prank door dash, prank packages, prank letters (glitter, stinky, etc), etc. Almost no one ever validates addresses before a service uses them. >The idea that you can exercise power in society and have zero accountability and demand to stay anonymous I never required the former. There could still be a process to make anonymously owned businesses accountable.
- queenkjuul 1y ago
  Maybe the police should validate claims with a little more scrutiny than pizza hut. Nobody's getting killed by a prank pizza.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    They validate the claim by paying you a visit. That's the point of the prank.
    - queenkjuul 1y ago
      Well, no, they usually smash your door down. That's the point of the "prank" There's a lot of steps between "call from random kid" and "smash someone's door down" that cops choose not to take
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
  > It's an issue with every service. Classic false equivalence. Being shot to death by overzealous and unaccountable swat teams is NOT the same as getting delivered a pizza you didn't order.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    It's not a false eqivalence. Personally I still wouldn't want to share my home addresses even if swatting was not a thing. If bad and more bad thing exist. The more bad thing not existing doesn't mean there is nothing bad left.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
      It's fine to not want your address shared and you don't even need to justify that opinion, you could just want privacy in general. But what you said is a false equivalence. Just because two things are both bad, does not mean they are equivalent. Mild inconvenience is bad, violent death is bad, does not mean mild inconvenience is the same as, and therefore directly comparable with, violent death.
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        I said that not validating addresses was what was equivalent. I had not said anything about the relative badness of each thing.

charcircuit 1y ago

>by enabling corruption and money laundering. The owner of the company being anonymous or not is not relevant here. These things can be done by people other than the owner and these people are already anonymous. >That's an issue of shit policing. It's an issue with every service. You can get prank pizzas, prank Uber eats, prank door dash, prank packages, prank letters (glitter, stinky, etc), etc. Almost no one ever validates addresses before a service uses them. >The idea that you can exercise power in society and have zero accountability and demand to stay anonymous I never required the former. There could still be a process to make anonymously owned businesses accountable.

queenkjuul 1y ago
Maybe the police should validate claims with a little more scrutiny than pizza hut. Nobody's getting killed by a prank pizza.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  They validate the claim by paying you a visit. That's the point of the prank.
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    Well, no, they usually smash your door down. That's the point of the "prank" There's a lot of steps between "call from random kid" and "smash someone's door down" that cops choose not to take
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
> It's an issue with every service. Classic false equivalence. Being shot to death by overzealous and unaccountable swat teams is NOT the same as getting delivered a pizza you didn't order.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  It's not a false eqivalence. Personally I still wouldn't want to share my home addresses even if swatting was not a thing. If bad and more bad thing exist. The more bad thing not existing doesn't mean there is nothing bad left.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
    It's fine to not want your address shared and you don't even need to justify that opinion, you could just want privacy in general. But what you said is a false equivalence. Just because two things are both bad, does not mean they are equivalent. Mild inconvenience is bad, violent death is bad, does not mean mild inconvenience is the same as, and therefore directly comparable with, violent death.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      I said that not validating addresses was what was equivalent. I had not said anything about the relative badness of each thing.