4 ms·
That's not, imho, a fair comparison - the user agent has the right to alter their perception of the content (strip ads, enlarge font size, have a screen-reader
by sci 18y ago
That's not, imho, a fair comparison - the user agent has the right to alter their perception of the content (strip ads, enlarge font size, have a screen-reader read it) - nowhere in that did the poster suggest that they are then free to re-distribute that content on to other users as your post suggests. I (humbly) put it that your logic is flawed.
- tptacek 18y agoHm, I think that's right.
- sci 18y agoWell sorry, it simply isn't. It's a very basic logical flaw, a fallacy of extension (it's extremely common, oft referred to as the straw man argument) - instead of arguing against the issue, namely the right of the user to alter their perception of received content to better suit their person, you are suggesting that the poster (and their argument) inherently supports the redistribution of that altered content to third parties without the content producer's permission - nowhere in the the post was that assertion made - you made it up all by yourself and then attacked that. So Yes, your logic is flawed, awfully sorry, I know, it's so annoying when that truth thing gets in the way.
- tptacek 18y agoUm, message board geek? I just agreed with you. Take a xanax.