@RandomDamage I was taught these definitions in a Human Geography paper, and I've spent long nights debating pols with a friend who was doing postgrad study in IR. Most people don't clearly define the terms they use, and don't care about ideas as much as identity tribes, which is perhaps why so much online discussion consists of people butting egos and clubbing each other with morality sticks.
... oh and before anyone pulls the "why should I do your research for you", if you can't give me any *information*, why the hell would I be the least bit interested in your *opinion*? If you haven't done enough reading to be able to find suitable sources without significant effort, your opinion probably isn't as erudite as you might think. Shut your yap.
@switchingsocial BTW can I suggest that you don't use the official account of a project to weigh in on an entirely unrelated controversy? If I had an official account for #Disintermedia (one day, I promise), I would make sure to use the account I'm posting from now for #shiptoasting and potentially contentious debates. That way people can choose whether they get official posts, or my opinions on XYZ, or both (by following both accounts). Just saying.
I'm interested in evidence-based discussions that leave me more informed than I was when they started. I have no interest in having PR talking points regurgitated at me, whether pro or anti this or that. Please untag me from any and all comments about #vaccination, and any other controversial topic, that don't provide a link to primary sources that back up the opinion given in the comment.
@RandomDamage BTW a "state" is not the same thing as a "government", "nation", or "country". Something can be a government (eg corporations) or a nation (eg indigenous peoples) without being a state. A country is a geographical area, that may or may not be governed, or have a state. Using the term "state" interchangeably with one of these other things tends to cause a lot of confusion in political discussions.
@RandomDamage FWIW > 1. You can always choose to violate a law.
That's one reason a law is not is not the same as a program.
> 2. The "State" doesn't have a monopoly on force (not even close).
A "state" has a monopoly on the *legitimate* use of force within a defined territory. This is the accepted definition in political science, from the hard right (IR "realists") to the hard left (anarchists).
@librelounge I'm unable to download episodes of the podcast without a VPN, due to #Archive.org being blocked by the Great Firewall :( Is there any way to detect the presence of that kind of roadblock when someone subscribes or updates and quietly give their #podcast client an alternative download source?
@kaniini OTOH if a service make the bulk of their revenue from protecting privacy, instead of from systematically violating it, they wouldn't need to be scared of privacy-protection laws to do the right thing. I'm not against carefully designed government regulation, but the OP is right that it's not a magic wand, and you have to be *very* careful of #UnintendedConsequences
@kaniini that would involve proving intent to violate privacy though, or at least gross negligence in failing to prevent violation. A law that fined anyone who got pwned, resulting in privacy violation, would put pretty much everyone out of business (including not-fot-profits), except the #datafarm corporations that can afford armies of lawyers, and get away with not paying fines.
@humanetech I claim no ownership over good ideas. If you think any of my shower thoughts are good ideas, and you have the resources to carry them out, go for it! If I can help, let me know how. But be aware that I've spent 20 years doing fulltime volunteer work on these issues, and I'm currently focused on trying to find ways to fund my work. I'm not really keen to take on more volunteering, especially where it involves planning and leading complex development projects. @z428@devurandom