7 ms·

It's not always black and white; let's be honest, yes, Kim Dotcom was probably more about piracy than freedom of whatever simply because that's where his money

It's not always black and white; let's be honest, yes, Kim Dotcom was probably more about piracy than freedom of whatever simply because that's where his money was. But: > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

lenerdenator 2y ago
Whistleblowing is not the same as hosting pirated material.
- NamTaf 2y ago
  Yes, that’s the point the poster is making. They are not the same despite being united by the fact that in both cases the government got involved and said “stop that, it’s wrong”. They explicitly stated their point that there’s a moral spectrum of positions which means it’s not always right to just roll over and find something else to do when the authorities get involved.
  - bandyaboot 2y ago
    I don’t know if it’s just coincidence, but I’ve been seeing this so much lately. People reflexively responding that thing A is totally different than thing B, completely missing that the point is not to suggest similarity between A and B, but to challenge the reasoning being applied to A by noting that it would also apply to B (in most cases where applying it to B leads to a clearly wrong outcome).
    - pishpash 2y ago
      It's standard trolling technique, or maybe rhetorical art to win an argument, your call. Now you have a pointless thread five deep.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      It's not a coincidence, it's become extremely common lately in online discussions. Instead of addressing the argument and, perhaps, pointing out why the two differing things should be treated differently, they just act offended and shut down the argument as if making the comparison at all is so offensive and wrong that we can't even discuss it logically.
- TheKarateKid 2y ago
  Back in the day, piracy was seen as a symbol of free speech and censorship much like how abortion is still a symbol for women's rights today. The premise was that these services didn't actually perform the piracy, its users did. Kim Dotcom played both sides of the field, much like how social media platforms are right now with the whole "we're not a media company" but wanting all the profits of providing services that those companies do. I'm not saying I agree, but it provides context as to why people felt Kim Dotcom was a hero.
throwup238 2y ago
> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general? Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.
- gliiics 2y ago
  I agree, and in fact I did not compare them. I asked an entirely different question. You can re-read the first line of my comment if you think I'm putting those two things on the same level, and you will see that I agree with: > He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    What is the point of asking that question if you strictly intended no comparison between the subject of the post you’re replying to and the people you mentioned? It is like posting “You have interesting thoughts about Kim Dotcom. What is better, paragliding or parasailing?”
    - singlow 2y ago
      He was contrasting them. He was pointing out that the logic of the previous post falls apart when applying it to more noble subjects.
      - jrflowers 2y ago
        That is a comparison.
        stouset 2y ago
        You can believe that the two should be held to different account while still critiquing a specific attempt at doing so.
    - beepbooptheory 2y ago
scotty79 2y ago
> > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? > Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general? Or maybe even more generally to people like Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffet? Because maybe at some point enough should be enough?
- toolz 2y ago
  I find this mentality is always directed at rich people, but never applied consistently in anyone's life, so I have a hard time taking this opinion seriously. Hopefully, you can convince me otherwise, but I've never heard anyone suggest the best sports teams should stop competing when they've won enough, or that the best inventors should stop, or the best artists, and so on. Money isn't zero sum. We're constantly creating insanely large quantities of money. If the people at the top are accumulating that money from individual consumers making their own free choices, then would you suggest that the people at the end of the line be given things for free? Or maybe they should be disallowed from making the purchases? Or maybe you're suggesting the rich keep selling but they're forced to give the profits away? and who would they give it away too? The federal government controls more money than any entire private business, so obviously it controls orders of magnitude more than any individual. Should these wealthy individuals be forced to give their money to the largest money holders in the world? What value system would that make sense in?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
    - jfyi 2y ago
      > I can try. Have you ever played competitive sports against a kid? You start to feel bad after a while. Winning comes easy, but you're worried that the kid might hurt themselves in over-exertion. In truth, the kid literally cannot make a decision that will beat you. You're the best. You know this. It's not fair. If online gaming is any indication, what you are describing is largely not the way the most vocal people feel. It's more generally, "let's actively hunt down little kids to ruthlessly defeat and record it while mocking them so we can make ourselves internet celebrities!" and "if I can't do it myself, at least I can watch this other guy mow down kids with no chance of competing and cheer him on!" There are exceptions of real skill of course, but those exceptions are what the others are desperately trying to emulate by seeking out weaker opponents. Introspection is going to be a hard sell for those others.
PhasmaFelis 2y ago
I think there's a significant difference between someone who does the right thing despite personal risk (because it's that important), and someone who does the profitable thing despite personal risk (because they can't imagine the rules actually applying to them).
jrflowers 2y ago
Snowden quit working for the NSA and left the country, and Assange does not appear to be operating Wikileaks anymore. I would imagine that they would both agree that there comes a point where it makes sense to factor consequences into your choices and quit what you are doing.
- evilfred 2y ago
  Snowden fled for Russia whom he protected in his selective leaking. Now he spouts off their official propaganda.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Russia whom he protected in his selective leaking. And you know this how? Now he spouts off their official propaganda. Only very sheepishly and obliquely. If he's supposed to be their mouthpiece, he's a pretty meek and ineffective one.
brailsafe 2y ago
>> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? > Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general? I don't think it's a relevant comparison, but I do think that particular suggestion should apply to them. Imo a fundamental component of "succeeding" in Western culture is in how quickly you learn which parts of which systems act on perverse incentives or actively against the good of the people, and subsequently being able read the room when there's an opportunity to play hero; sticking your neck out might earn you a smily face sticker next to your obituary, but more likely it'll end up screwing you, and it's naive and/or arrogant to think that this time will be different and you'll singlehandedly rid the ocean of pollution (metaphorically). Realizing that you can't rid the ocean of pollution doesn't mean you should start dumping more trash into it, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't do your civic duty to reduce your personal waste, but it does mean you have to set your ego aside for your own benefit, because in practice and in all likelihood you'll make practically zero or even very negative difference, and put a real tangible target on your back, in whichever context this plays out. Could be a safety meeting at your company in which you're just a peon and you feel like speaking up about a code violation, could be that you're a young Mr Beast employee that wants to vouch for their co-worker who's making less but doing more, or it could be that you want to make your company's website more accessible, in any case, unless you very clearly have the latitude to do so and control over the outcome, don't, because you'll screw yourself or someone else. Drive as well as you can in your lane, whatever that means to you, and if you don't like it, signal and change lanes, then do it again. This also means not overexerting oneself on things that require real tangible sacrifice but have only tenuous, nebulous, or only marginally more financially beneficial outcomes. Don't sacrifice too much time alone or with your partner or family or in nature for shipping yet another arbitrary AI SaaS bs product that will disappear in a week, pick the relevant battles and demand am important outcome, we don't have enough time to squander on such asinine missions. Again, that doesn't mean don't do work, or earn money, or help others, or whatever, just be careful how much of your life you trade for some 1s and 0s.

lenerdenator 2y ago

Whistleblowing is not the same as hosting pirated material.

NamTaf 2y ago
Yes, that’s the point the poster is making. They are not the same despite being united by the fact that in both cases the government got involved and said “stop that, it’s wrong”. They explicitly stated their point that there’s a moral spectrum of positions which means it’s not always right to just roll over and find something else to do when the authorities get involved.
- bandyaboot 2y ago
  I don’t know if it’s just coincidence, but I’ve been seeing this so much lately. People reflexively responding that thing A is totally different than thing B, completely missing that the point is not to suggest similarity between A and B, but to challenge the reasoning being applied to A by noting that it would also apply to B (in most cases where applying it to B leads to a clearly wrong outcome).
  - pishpash 2y ago
    It's standard trolling technique, or maybe rhetorical art to win an argument, your call. Now you have a pointless thread five deep.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    It's not a coincidence, it's become extremely common lately in online discussions. Instead of addressing the argument and, perhaps, pointing out why the two differing things should be treated differently, they just act offended and shut down the argument as if making the comparison at all is so offensive and wrong that we can't even discuss it logically.
TheKarateKid 2y ago
Back in the day, piracy was seen as a symbol of free speech and censorship much like how abortion is still a symbol for women's rights today. The premise was that these services didn't actually perform the piracy, its users did. Kim Dotcom played both sides of the field, much like how social media platforms are right now with the whole "we're not a media company" but wanting all the profits of providing services that those companies do. I'm not saying I agree, but it provides context as to why people felt Kim Dotcom was a hero.

throwup238 2y ago

> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general? Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.

gliiics 2y ago
I agree, and in fact I did not compare them. I asked an entirely different question. You can re-read the first line of my comment if you think I'm putting those two things on the same level, and you will see that I agree with: > He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  What is the point of asking that question if you strictly intended no comparison between the subject of the post you’re replying to and the people you mentioned? It is like posting “You have interesting thoughts about Kim Dotcom. What is better, paragliding or parasailing?”
  - singlow 2y ago
    He was contrasting them. He was pointing out that the logic of the previous post falls apart when applying it to more noble subjects.
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      That is a comparison.
      - stouset 2y ago
        You can believe that the two should be held to different account while still critiquing a specific attempt at doing so.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago

scotty79 2y ago

> > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? > Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general? Or maybe even more generally to people like Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffet? Because maybe at some point enough should be enough?

toolz 2y ago
I find this mentality is always directed at rich people, but never applied consistently in anyone's life, so I have a hard time taking this opinion seriously. Hopefully, you can convince me otherwise, but I've never heard anyone suggest the best sports teams should stop competing when they've won enough, or that the best inventors should stop, or the best artists, and so on. Money isn't zero sum. We're constantly creating insanely large quantities of money. If the people at the top are accumulating that money from individual consumers making their own free choices, then would you suggest that the people at the end of the line be given things for free? Or maybe they should be disallowed from making the purchases? Or maybe you're suggesting the rich keep selling but they're forced to give the profits away? and who would they give it away too? The federal government controls more money than any entire private business, so obviously it controls orders of magnitude more than any individual. Should these wealthy individuals be forced to give their money to the largest money holders in the world? What value system would that make sense in?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
  - jfyi 2y ago
    > I can try. Have you ever played competitive sports against a kid? You start to feel bad after a while. Winning comes easy, but you're worried that the kid might hurt themselves in over-exertion. In truth, the kid literally cannot make a decision that will beat you. You're the best. You know this. It's not fair. If online gaming is any indication, what you are describing is largely not the way the most vocal people feel. It's more generally, "let's actively hunt down little kids to ruthlessly defeat and record it while mocking them so we can make ourselves internet celebrities!" and "if I can't do it myself, at least I can watch this other guy mow down kids with no chance of competing and cheer him on!" There are exceptions of real skill of course, but those exceptions are what the others are desperately trying to emulate by seeking out weaker opponents. Introspection is going to be a hard sell for those others.

PhasmaFelis 2y ago

I think there's a significant difference between someone who does the right thing despite personal risk (because it's that important), and someone who does the profitable thing despite personal risk (because they can't imagine the rules actually applying to them).

jrflowers 2y ago

Snowden quit working for the NSA and left the country, and Assange does not appear to be operating Wikileaks anymore. I would imagine that they would both agree that there comes a point where it makes sense to factor consequences into your choices and quit what you are doing.

evilfred 2y ago
Snowden fled for Russia whom he protected in his selective leaking. Now he spouts off their official propaganda.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Russia whom he protected in his selective leaking. And you know this how? Now he spouts off their official propaganda. Only very sheepishly and obliquely. If he's supposed to be their mouthpiece, he's a pretty meek and ineffective one.

brailsafe 2y ago

>> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? > Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general? I don't think it's a relevant comparison, but I do think that particular suggestion should apply to them. Imo a fundamental component of "succeeding" in Western culture is in how quickly you learn which parts of which systems act on perverse incentives or actively against the good of the people, and subsequently being able read the room when there's an opportunity to play hero; sticking your neck out might earn you a smily face sticker next to your obituary, but more likely it'll end up screwing you, and it's naive and/or arrogant to think that this time will be different and you'll singlehandedly rid the ocean of pollution (metaphorically). Realizing that you can't rid the ocean of pollution doesn't mean you should start dumping more trash into it, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't do your civic duty to reduce your personal waste, but it does mean you have to set your ego aside for your own benefit, because in practice and in all likelihood you'll make practically zero or even very negative difference, and put a real tangible target on your back, in whichever context this plays out. Could be a safety meeting at your company in which you're just a peon and you feel like speaking up about a code violation, could be that you're a young Mr Beast employee that wants to vouch for their co-worker who's making less but doing more, or it could be that you want to make your company's website more accessible, in any case, unless you very clearly have the latitude to do so and control over the outcome, don't, because you'll screw yourself or someone else. Drive as well as you can in your lane, whatever that means to you, and if you don't like it, signal and change lanes, then do it again. This also means not overexerting oneself on things that require real tangible sacrifice but have only tenuous, nebulous, or only marginally more financially beneficial outcomes. Don't sacrifice too much time alone or with your partner or family or in nature for shipping yet another arbitrary AI SaaS bs product that will disappear in a week, pick the relevant battles and demand am important outcome, we don't have enough time to squander on such asinine missions. Again, that doesn't mean don't do work, or earn money, or help others, or whatever, just be careful how much of your life you trade for some 1s and 0s.