[gliiics]

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?

[throwup238]

> 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]

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]

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]

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]

That is a comparison.

[stouset]

You can believe that the two should be held to different account while still critiquing a specific attempt at doing so.

[beepbooptheory]

The comparison is between the proposed heuristic of "stopping at some point", not between the people.

[rowanG077]

It's not. They were attacking an argument made in the original comment. That argument had no reason to only apply to Kim dotcom. It applies to everyone. The poster attacked the logic behind that argument using a few different people as examples.

[PhasmaFelis]

On the internet, questions like your first comment are statistically likely to be smug gotchas. It'd be nice if it was different, but it's not. So if that's not your intention, it's worthwhile to say so in the first place rather than assume people will understand.

[jfyi]

Just to say up front, I think you are the only one that gets it here and am not criticizing you, but the answer in question could also be read that way (of course with the excuse that "the other guy did it first!").

Am I the only one that didn't read either that way? I think a lot of biases are hanging out in this conversation.

[calmbonsai]

Truth. I'll go further. He was a scam artist. Back in the day, I remember using MegaCar.com as an example of all the evils of Flash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9RIkwvFjfw

Also Data Protect was a fraud masquerading as an information security company. I was living in Germany then and it was a joke in the infosec space.

[akoboldfrying]

"Comparing X to Y feels gross [therefore don't do it]" is a gross argument. This type of argument never yields insight, and only serves to draw attention away from the interesting and relevant question being asked, which in this case is:

The top-level poster appears to be proposing a general rule for how people should behave. But how suitable is it really?

The way to explore that is to test it out by trying other inputs, as the GP did here.

[jfyi]

To be fair, the person you are replying to didn't use the argument you are describing. They stated it felt gross and then went into detail of the actual argument:

> He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.

That is noticeably different than stating, "it feels gross so don't do it".

[akoboldfrying]

What you're calling their "actual argument" is also a bad argument. The original proposed rule (which amounts to "Don't do stuff if someone powerful can likely punish you for it") doesn't distinguish between commercial opportunists and real activists or whistleblowers, so their "actual argument" is spurious.

It also seems designed to shut down criticism of the original proposed rule -- or at least that's the only interpretation I can ascribe to it. This is bad because that original proposed rule is bad (in my opinion) and deserves criticism. Ihe best kind of criticism of any rule is "Let's try this other input, and see if you still agree with the conclusion".

[jfyi]

Haha, of course the original comment doesn't distinguish... that was the whole reason for pointing it out. It was done specifically to separate the two sets of actors for comparison.

It "being designed to shut down criticism" is a wildly subjective take at best and at worst way more spurious than anything they or I am suggesting. I think your bias is showing and you are doing everything in your power to avoid addressing the point that "he was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower."

[akoboldfrying]

> the point that "he was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower."

This "point" isn't connected in any way to the original proposed rule, which is what is under examination here. So when the GP sought to test that rule by applying it to a different type of person, this "point" does not amount to an objection -- it's simply irrelevant.

I don't think I can make this any simpler.

[throw10920]

> Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.

Publicly available information supports the fact that Snowden was also an opportunist - the vast majority of the material he leaked was unrelated to domestic surveillance, which was his stated purpose for leaking.

Numbers don't lie.

[lnxg33k1]

Regardless of the reason, he gave many kids who couldn't afford to pay, a way to access movies and TV shows. I haven't watched a movie or a TV show for the past 20 years because its a waste of time for kids, but when I was young and couldn't afford to pay, I would use mega

[ranger_danger]

I don't think they were actually comparing Kim to anything else besides using his "resistance to the law" approach in a general sense to ask if "Isn't it wiser to stop at some point" should also apply to whistleblowers.

[ClassyJacket]

Literally the whole point of comparing things are that they are different. If you could only compare things that were exactly identically equal, the concept of comparing wouldn't make sense.

[rustcleaner]

>Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross.

Victims are victims. We just overlook victims of the state because of a biological religious adherence to revenge. Righteous violence and all that jazz.

[evilfred]

Snowden is a Russian operative, he isn't a real activist either

[pokstad]

That’s a subjective opinion. You shouldn’t have a legal system built on opinions.

[mjhay]

The written justification that judges give for their rulings is literally called a "judicial opinion."

Human understanding of humans and human social structures (which one needs to make just rulings) isn't objective. To claim otherwise is not just subjective, but incoherent. It's an infinite regress. Many people throughout history possessing ideas that we now consider to be stupid were convinced of their objectivity.

FWIW, I think this vendetta against Kim Dotcom is way out of line, and wouldn't have happened if he were more important.

[throwup238]

The legal system shouldn't care about motive?

[mulmen]

Sure but the legal system is only one branch of government. Many of the rights we enjoy today were earned by what the legal system would classify as criminals.

[PhasmaFelis]

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).

[lenerdenator]

Whistleblowing is not the same as hosting pirated material.

[NamTaf]

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]

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]

It's standard trolling technique, or maybe rhetorical art to win an argument, your call.

Now you have a pointless thread five deep.

[shiroiushi]

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]

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.

[scotty79]

> > 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]

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?

[andyroid]

> 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

While they want you to believe that, there’s no correlation between being rich and being best, or even good, at anything. You’re not the best athlete because your mom and dad were the best athletes. But if your parents were wealthy, you’re wealthy.

If they want standards to be applied ”consistently”, great. They can start by paying their taxes.

[toolz]

If you have issue with the taxes they pay then you have issue with the tax code, but that still doesn't address any problems or apply any consistent values. How does moving money from one rich person to the richest organization in the world achieve any goal?

[scotty79]

Money is just a way of keeping track of to what fraction of future output of other people you are entitled to (as agreed upon by human race).

Why shouldn't this quantity be softly capped at some value to prevent natural runaway towards 100%? What's wrong about capping it on the other side slightly above zero for the purposes of personal survival and preventing organic deterioration?

> Or maybe you're suggesting the rich keep selling but they're forced to give the profits away?

Obviously that.

> and who would they give it away too?

That is really irrelevant. The money they gave away can literally be burnt and it would still improve the situation. Money is not value. Money is just a score indicating how much value are you entitled to obtain in the future.

> The federal government controls more money than any entire private business

Is that true? Despite trillions of debt? There are national governments in the world (and not small ones) that currently owe more to businesses than they own assets.

Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success. Once you win everything you should step aside and let others have their fun. You shouldn't feel compelled to punish your body even harder for years to come and others shouldn't have to wait till your performance deteriorates.

[toolz]

> Money is just a way of keeping track of to what fraction of future output of other people you are entitled to (as agreed upon by human race).

I don't agree with this definition of money. The vast majority of money doesn't represent human output/labor and none of it is created by human labor. Probably the simplest to understand example of that is crypto. It represents trillions of USD in wealth and has almost no human labor input or output. That's a simple example, but certainly not the only example.

> Is that true? Despite trillions of debt?

Yes it's true. It's not even close. The US federal government spends in a single year more than the largest companies in this world would cost to buy flat out. They could save up for roughly 6 months and buy out the most expensive company in the world (apple). A company that has been growing their wealth for 50 years. This is why I struggle to find a consistent value system that claims we are solving problems by taking money from big earners and giving it to entities that already control many orders of magnitude more money. Moving money from the grossly rich to the insanely unthinkably rich doesn't make much sense to me.

> Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success.

What problem does this solve? I don't have anything much against it either, but I can't find any reason to do this.

[scotty79]

> The vast majority of money doesn't represent human output/labor and none of it is created by human labor.

I agree. That's completely not what I said.

Money is how we keep track of what fraction of the future output of others (of our civilization really) someone or some organization is entited to command (consume or destroy for their needs or schemes) in the future.

> US federal government spends in a single year more than the largest companies in this world would cost to buy flat out.

I'm still not convinced. You can spend a lot when you are incredibly deep in debt. Spending doesn't make you rich.

> This is why I struggle to find a consistent value system that claims we are solving problems by taking money from big earners and giving it to entities that already control many orders of magnitude more money.

The point is not giving money, it's taking the money away. Because there's a limit of how much control over others any single person deserves regardless of what they did.

>> Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success.

> What problem does this solve?

No global problem. But professional sport takes a huge toll on the body and pretty much excludes those people from any useful form of activity for entire span of their career and possibly later only for our grotesque entertainment. I don't agitate for limits in sport but that's just an example that reasonable limits may benefit people in many areas.

[toolz]

> I agree. That's completely not what I said.

I still misunderstand you, I think.

> Money is how we keep track of [...] output of others

How do I reconcile that you agree money doesn't represent the output of others, while understanding this comment that says it keeps track of the output of others?

> Spending doesn't make you rich.

I would argue that being rich doesn't matter at all. We can always print more money. The only part of being rich that matters is the influence your spending represents. Otherwise it's nothing more than numbers in a computer database and has no impact on the world. The fact that the government spends so aggressively is what makes their influence so powerful and scary. Unlike rich individuals, the governments wage war frequently. I would much rather see random people have obscene net worth rather than see major countries grow their military budget, building weapons that are even more efficient at killing poor people in other countries.

> Because there's a limit of how much control over others any single person deserves regardless of what they did.

agreed, that's why it matters so much as to where the money is going when you take it from rich individuals. Giving it the federal government grows their military budget, which the president of the US has complete control over. A single individual with the authority to launch a full-scale invasion tomorrow. Compare that to elon musk or bill gates. Their purchasing influence is infinitesimally small compared to the same money utilized by the federal government.

> sport takes a huge toll on the body and pretty much excludes those people from any useful form of activity for entire span of their career and possibly later only for our grotesque entertainment.

valid argument. I don't agree with it, but I don't find the argument to be inconsistent or without merit.

[jrflowers]

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]

Snowden fled for Russia whom he protected in his selective leaking. Now he spouts off their official propaganda.

[aguaviva]

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]

>> 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.