Why don't we just add an amendment to the US Constitution that says >Freedom of data shall not be infringed this would effectively make DRM and censorship on the internet go away. >but muh pedos Nothing is stopping you from executing pedos for touching children.
There should be no such thing as illegal data. I do not want to live in a world where the glow niggers get to dictate which files are legal and illegal. Do you seriously trust them not to label things they don't want leaking out as child porn? I've seen how they operate. They just use it to go after the innocent.
>be me >host imageboard >some fag dumps/leaks Government sekrits >good thread lots of discussion and lulz >glow niggers find out >suddenly pizza everywhere >mods get spooked and leave >get ddosed >servers get seized >get deplatformed >get visit from glow niggers
Never had a problem with pizza until glow niggers showed up. Anyone that's okay with this is totally retarded.
>Why don't we just add an amendment to the US Constitution that says Freedom of data shall not be infringe Firstly, your definition is really vague and wouldn't mean anything in a court of law. Secondly, money. The amount of business interests in maintaining DRM and copyright are too great for any congress member to be incentivized against it without a significant change in public opinion on this.
Logan Wood
>we
Oliver Gutierrez
You think the constitution still matters? lmao
Jordan Nelson
it will never gain traction because normalfags are braindead and have been successfully trained to unthinkingly attack anything the government/media paints as being "pedo". even the so-called "red-pilled" on this very site fall for it. pavlov would be proud. mccarthyism never ended, it just changed the accusations.
Gavin Harris
>mccarthyism never ended Ironically, everyone he accused came out as a commie. >You think the constitution still matters? lmao It still matters. As long as people are willing to exercise the 2nd it matters. >Firstly, your definition is really vague and wouldn't mean anything in a court of law. It's supposed to be vague. "Freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" is vague. It's on purpose. You're leaving absolutely no room to ban any type of speech, publication, or data.
I would argue "Freedom of the Press" already applies to data. The act of uploading it is publishing it to the world.
Aaron Scott
>Freedom of data Should be 100% - between husband and wife. Implement that and watch single-parent households disappear.
Alexander Lewis
what the fuck does this mean? elaborate
Xavier Bailey
This? This? This? Ask a real question or fuck off, ESL.
Jace Jenkins
>why not just make crimes illegal?
Kevin Jenkins
>>but muh pedos Sounds like you care a lot about that sort of thing Fuck off, pedo scum
Luke James
oh no the glowies showed up
Xavier Rogers
what do you mean by "freedom of data should be 100% - between husband and wife"? and how does that relate to single-parent households? I didn't mean to attack you, just curious about your thoughts, since I legit didn't understand what you were trying to say
Joseph Powell
Pardon me, I'm pretty tired from the common low-effort "explain your post with no context of what is unclear" response. I mean that if a husband and wife can do everything they want in the bedroom, which must always be the case, they surely must also be able to converse about anything using any means. This extends to all personal technological means of communication, like phones and computers. If this is infringed upon by a state, that state can have no legitimacy and must be deplatformed by any sane person who's not a eunuch. In the other direction, this is a solid point of reference for "data freedom"; it's a very real example of where it must supply 100%. That's just as or more important as the real examples where it doesn't apply, e.g. that there's no reason why any society should uphold any "right" to send dickpics to strangers' kids.
Camden Jackson
I forgot to elaborate my second point, which was more of a joke: If you take this positive example on face value and implement it like that, you get "Internet only for married people, where the provider only allows connections between marriage partners". That's both funny, a pretty wild technological vision, and would incentivize marriage for kids who want their Internets back. Stacies all like: "You know I only married him for the DSL!"
Adrian Martinez
>As long as people are still willing to exercise the 2nd it matters You mean like they did during the capitol riots? Oh wait that's right only the cops shot people, the fact is Americans having guns mean nothing since they don't use them to fight the government, most Americans are far too comfy to enact the 2nd.
Julian Morales
oh ok, that's a very good idea in my opinion. although not very useful in itself, it could be a good precedent for other cases where "freedom of data" should also apply. like lawyer-client relationships, etc
Chase Gonzalez
Deriving human laws from natural laws is pretty smart whichever way you look at it. And there are various levels on which to learn about natural laws that transpose to greater and smaller extents to human social norms and laws, rendering it a much more interesting (yet underdeveloped) field than logic/oration/philosophy-based law derivation.
Kevin Foster
Why did you host an image board in a manner that they could find you? You can easily use tor while bridging in your connection from another proxy. That way when they go to seize something the found via a ddos its just some shitty embedded piece of crap.
