4 ms·

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. Sim

by 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."

by pixl97 1mo ago

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."