3 ms·

What happened to Swartz was injustice. Why would I want it to happen to more people? This is, at least to me, an insane point of view. "Oh my god, the police

by pixl97 1mo ago

What happened to Swartz was injustice. Why would I want it to happen to more people? This is, at least to me, an insane point of view. "Oh my god, the police just shot a black man for no reason. To make this fair they should also shoot more white people for no reason". Do you see how absolutely unhinged that sounds?

jraph 1mo ago
The parent comment highlights the double standards, they are not campaigning for pushing people to suicide. This is a strawman. Yeah, this double standards thing is profoundly unjust.
- pixl97 1mo ago
  I disagree. >To allow the Altmans and Amodeis of the world to escape the kinds of consequences that Swartz could not ... would be the height of injustice. Simply put, he's demanding two injustices. Let's break this down with a imaginary law. "If you do not wear your hat you will be beheaded. This includes the poorest man and the king himself". In OPs definition, this kind of equality is justice. But I do not consider this justice at all, simply equality. "If you do not wear your hat you will be fined $1. This includes the poorest man and the king himself". This is something much more close to justice as the punishment fits the crime.
  - bch 1mo ago
    > This is something much more close to justice as the punishment fits the crime. True, but to put a still finer point on it, still fantastically more harmful to that poorest man than the king.
    - jacquesm 1mo ago
      The real injustice is that the poor man does not have a hat. Whereas the king most likely has a whole room dedicated to them.
    - pixl97 1mo ago
      Again I agree, this is why some countries have scaling fines. If a rich person gets a speeding ticket they still don't execute them.
      - bch 1mo ago
        We're on the same page.
  - matheusmoreira 1mo ago
    There are two injustices here. The first injustice is the sheer existence of this notion of intellectual property. The second injustice stems from the selective application of the associated laws. Intellectual property should not exist, but since it does, one can and should expect it to be applied consistently in all cases. Just look at what they did to Kim Dotcom, he basically got destroyed. SWAT rappelled down helicopters and descended upon this guy for the egregious crime of copying bits. That's exactly what should happen to Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and Meta. Anything less than that is an insult to previous enforcement victims. Inconsistency robs authorities of all credibility. Selective enforcement exposes them for the arbitrary tyrants they are and delegitimizes their decisions.
    - irri11 1mo ago
      [dead]
    - pixl97 1mo ago
      "For my friends, everything. For everyone else, the law." And "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
joquarky 1mo ago
It sounds unhinged because it's a straw man.
GPerson 1mo ago
I usually shit post on this website because it’s full of amoral idiots who just want to make a lot of money and don’t care about others, but I want to suggest to you that arguing using extreme analogies is almost never a persuasive rhetorical device. The other person almost always just sees the way it doesn’t accurately apply to the situation.

by pixl97 1mo ago

jraph 1mo ago

The parent comment highlights the double standards, they are not campaigning for pushing people to suicide. This is a strawman. Yeah, this double standards thing is profoundly unjust.

pixl97 1mo ago
I disagree. >To allow the Altmans and Amodeis of the world to escape the kinds of consequences that Swartz could not ... would be the height of injustice. Simply put, he's demanding two injustices. Let's break this down with a imaginary law. "If you do not wear your hat you will be beheaded. This includes the poorest man and the king himself". In OPs definition, this kind of equality is justice. But I do not consider this justice at all, simply equality. "If you do not wear your hat you will be fined $1. This includes the poorest man and the king himself". This is something much more close to justice as the punishment fits the crime.
- bch 1mo ago
  > This is something much more close to justice as the punishment fits the crime. True, but to put a still finer point on it, still fantastically more harmful to that poorest man than the king.
  - jacquesm 1mo ago
    The real injustice is that the poor man does not have a hat. Whereas the king most likely has a whole room dedicated to them.
  - pixl97 1mo ago
    Again I agree, this is why some countries have scaling fines. If a rich person gets a speeding ticket they still don't execute them.
    - bch 1mo ago
      We're on the same page.
- matheusmoreira 1mo ago
  There are two injustices here. The first injustice is the sheer existence of this notion of intellectual property. The second injustice stems from the selective application of the associated laws. Intellectual property should not exist, but since it does, one can and should expect it to be applied consistently in all cases. Just look at what they did to Kim Dotcom, he basically got destroyed. SWAT rappelled down helicopters and descended upon this guy for the egregious crime of copying bits. That's exactly what should happen to Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and Meta. Anything less than that is an insult to previous enforcement victims. Inconsistency robs authorities of all credibility. Selective enforcement exposes them for the arbitrary tyrants they are and delegitimizes their decisions.
  - irri11 1mo ago
    [dead]
  - pixl97 1mo ago
    "For my friends, everything. For everyone else, the law." And "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

joquarky 1mo ago

It sounds unhinged because it's a straw man.

GPerson 1mo ago

I usually shit post on this website because it’s full of amoral idiots who just want to make a lot of money and don’t care about others, but I want to suggest to you that arguing using extreme analogies is almost never a persuasive rhetorical device. The other person almost always just sees the way it doesn’t accurately apply to the situation.