757
Linux not in meme
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
757 points (95.1% liked)
linuxmemes
21211 readers
57 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Authorized without consent. That is what Louis Rossmann calls a rapist mentality.
I agree with that dude’s takes but he rubs me the wrong way.
Users explicitly and willingly click on "I agree" to the Terms and Conditions. It might be undesirable, but it is consented
Yes and no. While you are legally in the clear, in practice no one read those because of the huge amount of legalese.
True consent is only obtainable if the person consenting understands what it means. Or else it's just legal consent.
"just legal consent"... I mean sure, but you know how stupid most people are, right? There is no way to get the type of consent you want from them for any slightly complex topic.
Your point of view makes sense. In my opinion though, when you agree without reading the terms, you're basically saying "you're allowed to do whatever you want"
You are consenting, not with this or that, but with anything regarding that product, probably because you trust the company, or you don't care enough
This attitude is what props up billions of people's privacy being invaded with zero recourse. No. Just no.
I think people here are misunderstanding reality evaluation with judgement of value.
Every time you sign up for something without understanding what it is exactly, they are setting themselves up for failure. This doesn't mean that the company is right, or what they are doing is fair and just. Microsoft is clearly morally dubious, but they did technically get you agreement with it. The one who signed up is wrong, not in valuing privacy, but in expecting, even for a single moment, that a corporation would have their best interest in mind. They only have revenue growth in mind, and that's bu the very nature of how their business is organized.
That's why zero trust systems are important, and FOSS is a way of getting it. Being open source allows for anyone with enough technical knowledge to audit every part of the system, so you don't need to trust a businessman
So what you're hand waving away here is legalese and how no one can understand much of it even if they did read it. Absolutely no one reads every page of the 50 you're required to sign when buying a house, for example.
But we have trust that society wouldn't allow us to buy a house if people are hiding sneaky shit in the contractual language. Yes we have a few things like variable interest rates but no one is signing away their privacy rights in perpetuity in exchange for the chance to buy a home. We have a society that gives us certain expectations, and quite often those are met.
No, to use a computer we should not have to read 100 pages of documents and understand all of them. It's impractical and that's illustrated by the fact that billions of people so far haven't read any of that shit.
You are right that we ought to be more careful signing stuff, but that's a separate discussion imo. We shouldn't even have the option legally of accidentally agreeing to such self sabotage
You do give consent. If you didn't you wouldn't be using Windows.
Say I buy a tomato. Tomato is sold to me as tomato, grown in a green house. It's a good tomato.
I bring it home and I cut into it to make salsa and find a razor blade. I didn't see any markings on the outside. I don't know how it got there.
I go back to the store and say, "Dude, what the fuck is up with the razor blade?!"
They say, "Oh, we noticed a lot of people buying tomatoes to cut them so we decided to include a razor blade! You're welcome!"
I say, "But I don't want a razor blade. I just want the tomato!"
They say, "Oh....that's too bad. We think you'll really like the razer blade."
I say, "I don't care. I want a tomato without razor blades."
They say, "ok. Just make sure you present this very specific, very distinct bar code to the check out person."
I go and buy another tomato, present the barcode.
I bring it home and it has a different type of blade inside it.
I go back to the store and they say, "Well, you opted out of blade model a. This is blade model b."
I consented to buy a tomato. Not to buy a razer blade.
I consented to install Windows OS, not fucking copilot, Cortana, Xbox central, etc.
I should have full control over my OS, regardless of who makes it. Even Ubuntu Linux had some sketchy adware that had to be removed (this was like Ubuntu 18 or something can't remember).
True, I didn't say it wasn't a problem. I just said legally that's how it works.
Most people are too tech illiterate to understand it all. I doubt people would agree to such a level of data collection, if they knew more about it. I believe it can be compared to making illiterate people sign a contract, when they can't even read it.
Well they agreed to it. It isn't a great reality but its the one we live in.
As if users understood anything related to their computer.
Yeah this reminds me of the time I argued with a guy who stood firmly by the opinion that because Facebook has terms of service that people agreed to, there was nothing wrong or unethical about Facebook business practices and everyone who used it deserved what they got
It a lot of ways that's correct. However, I think the issue is the status quo
Yeah so you're that guy. 👎
I don't use Facebook or any other privacy invading service. My point was that part of the issue is people being lazy and not caring about the terrible things in the terms of service they totally bothered to read.