The Federal Trade Commission is sending refunds totaling more than $5.6 million to consumers as the result of a settlement with Ring over charges the company allowed employees and contractors to ac
I did not know mocking people is serious instead of mere contribution to discussion. Is that not what you are doing with the whole defeatism thing? I did not remove your jab comment at privacy initiative, why remove their little jab?
So you also believe that you can determine tone from text. What I see written is a call to action. While context could appear to make it light-hearted, it’s still a call to action. Very much akin to the “in minecraft” “meme” which didn’t pass muster and got someone arrested. Seems odd that a “privacy” caring moderator would tolerate even a “joke” based on taking away someone’s privacy. Jumping to the point of “let’s dox this guy” from where we were in the conversation was not a normal step. Nothing about a camera on private property equates to doxing someone. Just because I see a mail carrier on my cameras doesn’t mean I actually know anything about them. Jumping straight to doxing someone “as a joke” isn’t even reasonable in context if you FORCE a light-hearted nature to the comment.
Nowhere in my “defeatism” did I write a call to action (and if there was one it would be to write your representatives if you’re in the US to change the law) so I’m not sure why you’re equating them. Neither did I actually claim actual defeatism. I’m all for privacy. I’m a huge advocate for it. Someone’s right to their property is a completely different issue which is actually codified. Claiming that your right to privacy supersedes an actual right to property is a bit silly. That’s not “defeatism”.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/10636070
Which is a call to action. A little bit down the comment thread.
I did not know mocking people is serious instead of mere contribution to discussion. Is that not what you are doing with the whole defeatism thing? I did not remove your jab comment at privacy initiative, why remove their little jab?
So you also believe that you can determine tone from text. What I see written is a call to action. While context could appear to make it light-hearted, it’s still a call to action. Very much akin to the “in minecraft” “meme” which didn’t pass muster and got someone arrested. Seems odd that a “privacy” caring moderator would tolerate even a “joke” based on taking away someone’s privacy. Jumping to the point of “let’s dox this guy” from where we were in the conversation was not a normal step. Nothing about a camera on private property equates to doxing someone. Just because I see a mail carrier on my cameras doesn’t mean I actually know anything about them. Jumping straight to doxing someone “as a joke” isn’t even reasonable in context if you FORCE a light-hearted nature to the comment.
Nowhere in my “defeatism” did I write a call to action (and if there was one it would be to write your representatives if you’re in the US to change the law) so I’m not sure why you’re equating them. Neither did I actually claim actual defeatism. I’m all for privacy. I’m a huge advocate for it. Someone’s right to their property is a completely different issue which is actually codified. Claiming that your right to privacy supersedes an actual right to property is a bit silly. That’s not “defeatism”.