Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.
Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?
Lemmy needs “sort by controversial” for entertainment purposes.
Inspired by this, I wrote this quick function to paste in your browser console, if you’re on PC:
(() => { const comments = [...document.querySelectorAll('main > div > .comments > li')]; const commentsHolder = document.querySelector('main > div > .comments'); const sorted = comments.sort((a, b) => { const upvotesA = Number(a.querySelector('.comment-bottom-btns > button:nth-child(1) > span').innerText); const downvotesA = Number(a.querySelector('.comment-bottom-btns > button:nth-child(2) > span').innerText); const upvotesB = Number(b.querySelector('.comment-bottom-btns > button:nth-child(1) > span').innerText); const downvotesB = Number(b.querySelector('.comment-bottom-btns > button:nth-child(2) > span').innerText); const ratioA = upvotesA > downvotesA ? downvotesA / upvotesA : upvotesA / downvotesA; const ratioB = upvotesB > downvotesB ? downvotesB / upvotesB : upvotesB / downvotesB; const diffA = 1 - ratioA; const diffB = 1 - ratioB; if (diffA === diffB) { return upvotesA + downvotesA >= upvotesB + downvotesB ? -1 : 1; } return diffA > diffB ? 1 : -1; }); for (const comment of sorted) { commentsHolder.appendChild(comment); } })()It sorts the comments by controversial, but first you need to scroll through all the comments to load them all.
Indeed!
After an entity reaches an annual cap (say $5m profit), 95c of every dollar should be taxed
Gonna need tons of capitals controls to prevent money from leaving, rich people are good at moving. To what end? So the federal government gets even more money to spend on subsidies, police riot gear & highways. They’d turn the Pentagon into an octagon before they’d meaningfully help their citizens.
Yeah it’s not the only thing that would need to change for sure… I didn’t want to get too crazy here 😝
Give em a “you won capitalism!” Participation trophy 🏆 too.
And a hearty handshake and a high five. Then start selling their assets and departments to competitors.
If other nations can have billionaires and we can’t, and our country is vast and rich, we will be at a disadvantage.
The WANT of money is corrupting itself. Actually having the money itself is not needed. People who want money will destroy your little system, and throw your country into chaos, ruination and poverty, united by a conspiracy of common interests.
I would rather just regulate what needs regulating, within reason, with a gentle hand, and only a strong hand with the worst of violations. For the record, I would be much harsher than the us has tended to be when it comes to pollution, etc.
Fair enough…
I don’t think you can truely regulate any system we currently know in favour of the populace. So I take the us Vs them approach.
Each to their own 😎
No. Fuck them. They can leave.
They will still do business in your country.
Also countries should tax companies on money that goes out of the country based off of their overall profit. So if Google makes 10% profit over costs the. We charge them 30% tax on the money they funneled out of Australia. Done.
As it once was with FDR.
FDR had it less extreme than taxing anything with more than 5 million into the ground
I definitely think 50%, like they supposedly do in China. No exceptions. You try to evade it, you go to jail for six months, enjoy. I think that’s what happened to Jack Ma.
Anything would be alright with me, I’m in Australia and so I’m definitely warped with my international tax views. Probably why i’m at the extreme end of the scale
95% would also be fine.
It should scale up like it did in the USA
no space rockets would ever be launched that means no satellite wifi for people in remote areas think abt the implications of this
Just give people who reach $10m net worth a “Congratulations you won at capitalism” diploma and tax them 100% after that
I would like 95% of your dollars, please. If we get to arbitrarily rob people who make more than we do, I’d like something from you!
Lol… keep growing
I think it was fine, certainly a very unique and artsy style, but I can see why some people don’t like it.
Shit I wouldn’t say unwatchable but I was greatly disappointed and think the praise it has gotten was unjustified.
Their first movie “Swiss Army man” was original, edgy and deep
EEOAO was well done, but it was neither of those three. It was a longer, less creative, real-life Rick and Morty episode if you ask me.
It was definitely a tough watch for me. I think I only got through it because I watched it at work or while doing something else. The family dynamics were good, as was the ending, but good lord the stuff in between was a trainwreck.
Most conservatives, however deeply red, are not intentionally hateful and are usually open to rational discussion. People just don’t know how to have rational discussions nowadays and the few times they do, they don’t know how to think like somebody else and put things in a way they can understand.
People nowadays think because a point convinced them, it should convince everybody else and anybody who’s not convinced by it is just being willfully ignorant. The truth is we all process things differently and some people need to hear totally different arguments to understand, often put in ways that wouldn’t convince you if you heard it.
It’s hard to understand other people and I feel like the majority of people have given up trying in favor of assuming everybody who disagrees with you knows their wrong and refuses to admit it.
Except half od them are QAnon believers.
much less than half
It is very hard to have rational disccussion when people disagree on the basic observable facts, ignore the “rules” of debate, and are struggling with critical thinking. You can meet difficult people on all the political spectrum, but certain idealogy attract more difficult people, and certain stuff mainstream conservatives believe right now has absolutely no basis in reality.
If it wasn’t for their response to the pandemic, I might be inclined to agree with you.
And their response to LGBT+ issues, and their response to Trump’s crimes, and…
Yeah, no. Republicans have had more than enough opportunities to redeem themselves. There is no remaining doubt to give them the benefit of.
are usually open to rational discussion
Are they believers? If they are, your assertion is false.
I was going to post my rant about conservatives as a top level comment, but I didn’t think it was unpopular enough.
I agree with your central premise that there is a disconnect of understanding and perception between progressives and conservatives.
However, it’s not that conservatives haven’t heard a convincing argument, or something that accounts for their perspective. This is part of the fundamental disconnect, and you’re an excellent example of why people don’t know how to put things in a way others will understand.
Conservativism is not a principled ideology. It is the political justification of narcissism in every form. Conservatives like being conservative because it gives them a free pass to be selfish and egocentric in their political beliefs. There is no foundational value system or policy that is inherently conservative.
The conservative ideology defines the self and the other. Nothing else is fixed. Whatever is good for the self is good, and whatever is bad for the self is bad.
That’s it, that explains every conservative position ever held by any conservative since the invention of conservativism in the 1800s. From Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand wanting to roll back many of the reforms of the French Revolution, to Donald Trump becoming the Messiah, conservatives identify the self, and then do anything to benefit the self. Granted, Francois-Rene was a much better writer, but he was no less inconsistent in his desire to promote ideologies that benefitted himself and his peers.
Conservatives will couch their positions as staunch defense of tradition, and general opposition to change for the sake of change, but that’s window dressing. They don’t believe in stoicism or absolutism or really anything they claim to believe. And that’s why you cannot have a rational debate with a conservative. That’s why you won’t ever convince them to change their minds on a subject simply by pointing out flaws in their logic or perception.
The only method that has ever worked at getting a conservative to shift or compromise is by showing them how it will benefit them. Why is this policy good for the self? What value will they receive in exchange for easing up on their intransigence? If you can convince a conservative to abandon an ideological position, you can be sure it’s because they believe the new position is better for them.
Look at any conservative leader in history, any political pundit, any legislator or writer or conservative iconoclast. Viewed through the lens of narcissism, their intentions, their hypocrisies, their inconsistencies, they are all laid bare. There is no deeper meaning, no mystery to why they have had sudden changes or seemingly flip flopped on an issue. It’s not that complicated.
So no, it’s not that people don’t know how to have rational discussions these days. It’s that conservativism is anathema to rational thought, and it always has been. It’s a license to be as hateful or ignorant or selfish as you want to be, and you needn’t worry about defending your positions from things like facts, or realty, or reason, because those are tools of the other. If the other opposes you, they are evil and their reality, their facts, their reason is equally evil. They don’t need to be refuted, they need to be destroyed by any means necessary. The self is good, therefore anything the self needs to do to win is good. Lies, deception, personal attacks, intimidation, threats, violence, all of them are justified by the belief in the righteous self. There is no bar too low to be stooped under, no treachery too vile to be considered, no accusation too false to be levied. A conservative with scruples is a conservative unchallenged.
Maybe in the past, but nowadays there’s no rational discussion to be had with someone who doesn’t think you should legally be allowed to exist…
You’re not outright wrong, but it’s really hard to have the rational discussion skills to cut through decades of propaganda. For the many deep in the right-ring bubble, brainwashing is a better term than mere propaganda.
I can agree with that. I’ve been part of a cult before (was born into it) and I can recognize a lot of what I went through there in far right people. I guess I’m just a little sensitive to people calling these people idiots and hateful people due to seeing myself in them. Like, to me, they’re (usually) just good people being manipulated into thinking the awful things they say and do are good, and they need a rational and caring person to pull them slowly out of it, the same way I did.
Obviously, it takes more than just talking usually to pull somebody out of a cult, but I think it’s still a big part of it. They’ve been fooled into thinking that things that are rational aren’t, and unless they’re confronted with the actual truth and the facts to back them up, they’re not going to even start to question their beliefs.
I’m also not suggesting that every person needs to debate every republican about every issue they bring up. If you can’t or even just don’t want to debate somebody, you don’t have any obligation to, but I don’t think insulting them over it is almost ever the right response.
There’s also the angle of how every cult teaches you that you’re going to be persecuted for your beliefs, and brainwashes you into thinking that should reaffirm you that you must be correct. That is one major reason I think labeling all conservatives as irrational and hopeless is dangerous. When somebody who’s been taught that the world is going to hate them for being “right” finds that the world does not, in fact, hate them, but instead just displays genuine concern, that’s when you fully start to question everything.
I don’t think every right winger is going to fling left when presented with this view. In fact, I think the vast majority won’t, but it will make them a little more understanding, and a little more understanding over the course of many years and generations adds up.
I have had plenty of conversations with people irl. Most of the them with people who are to the right of me on the political spectrum. What I found in the conversations that were fruitful, was that our disagreement on larger issues, such as economics or personal freedoms, tended to stem from disagreements on smaller issues. To paraphrase my friend, “We are using the same words, but they all mean different things.” It seems to me that there are some elementary differences between progressives and conservatives that change how we rationalize the larger issues. That’s how the two groups can, based on the same information, come to two different conclusions.
That being said though, I think Fox News and other conservative news channels have created information silos. Not everyone who is conservative has necessarily had access to the same body of facts and evidence that progressives have. I think a good portion of people who are stuck in those silos would change their views if they had a more balanced news diet.
research subjects who considered themselves conservative tended to have larger amygdala, the section of the brain in the temporal lobes that plays a major role in the processing of emotions. Self-defined liberals, meanwhile, generally had a larger volume of gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain associated with coping with uncertainty and handling conflicting information.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/are-your-political-beliefs-hardwired-108090437/
Political neuroscience is an interesting field. I remember hearing about similar studies years ago on podcasts. A quick google revealed the field has had numerous studies done in the last year alone.
I don’t feel that this section inherently contradicts what I am trying to say and perhaps is intended to be supporting evidence. The fact that the differences between conservatives and liberals can be measured means that the disagreements stem from a real place. However, the article mentions that this does not mean agreement is impossible. It means that the two groups need to be approached differently with the same information.
Andrea Kuszewski, a researcher who has written about political neuroscience, would rather put a positive spin on what it could mean for politics. She says this kind of knowledge could help open up communication, or at least ease hostility between the country’s two major political parties.
“Each side is going to have to recognize that not everyone thinks like them, processes information like them, or values the same types of things,” she wrote last week. “With the state our country is in right now, I don’t think we have any choice but to cowboy up and do whatever needs to be done in order to reach some common ground.”
Do you mind elaborating on the intention of sharing the quoted section of the linked article? I don’t want to assume and I want to engage with what you mean.
Yeah except for the fact that they are causing very real damage to POC and LGBTQ people. So let’s be very clear here. Conservatives are not intentionally hateful and can be nice and kind if you are a straight white Christian. If you aren’t in the in group though they can and will turn on you even if they tolerate you. Because conservative ideology is one fundamentally founded on hate and oppression.
Anti-natalism makes some good points
removed by mod
Well aren’t you a sensitive little breeder
Anti nationalism makes all the good points
It’s a great game imo, but I really hope they don’t do another one with WotC. 5e is so, so crunchy. Stuff like Armor is such a strange thing compared to any modern RPG. Weapons are largely unchanging and can’t be improved like Skyrim, DOS2, or other midern titles. There’s very little AoE magic, which makes combat a chore. Spellslots (where you need a long rest to recharge) are annoying AF and were fine in the 1980s pen and paper era, but translate poorly today. Zombies needing to be killed with crits or radiant damage means you have to drag a cleric around despite them being a big step down from Lohse in DOS2. Reminds me of the HM mule days of Pokémon in the mid 00s.
I’m very happy to see more dialog instead of pure combat. It’s nice to be able to talk your way out of situations. Also very happy to see full blown nudity, too many games these days are trying to be kid/American puritan friendly. I hope they take the positives into their next game, but I really think their own ideas on what a modern RPG should be like were better. Oh, and give me more werewolves and the ability to turn into one.
Agreed. The user interface is the worst. Everything does not need to be animated.
It definitely deserves the praise because of how pro-consumer it is, even if it has some flaws on the ui/u
I had a pretty big typo, I’m not saying it doesn’t deserve any praise, I’m just saying it deserves less. I think a better way of saying it is that I wish folks were still critical of it while saying they enjoy it. Most people seem to think things are either good or bad and there’s no room for nuance. Saying “I’ve found bugs and the UX is really bad” just seems to draw out a bunch of rabid fans even when you pair that statement with “I’ve been really enjoying this game, I’ve put many hours in and I recommend it”.
Yeah, idk I’m a bit of a hipster on larian, played and loved dos 1 and 2, talked to everyone about it but very few people gave it a chance. Now bg3 has a lot of those same friends playing and talking about how great it is lol so I have the normal hipster response lol. Happysad
Same with DOS2, couldn’t get through the terrible combat.
deleted by creator
I’ve been trying to be more willing to listen recently. Of course there are some people who don’t want to have a dialogue and will just post their anger and run. I don’t engage with these posts cause the user was looking for a reaction rather than a conversation.
But if someone is willing to explain why they feel the way they do about something, willing to hear criticism, and perhaps even ask me questions, I’m more likely to engage with them.
deleted by creator
I may be reading this wrong. But are you saying if you are white, you must behave a certain way(refrain from yelling or cursing, etc…but if you are a minority, it’s acceptable to do those things? Or have I totally missed what you are saying?
deleted by creator
Given this is Lemmy/Reddit overspill I think the more unpopular opinion mentioned here would be “you shouldn’t be apathetic towards social problems and instead actually try to do something about them”
deleted by creator
Generally, social justice is at best, a distraction from real issues, albeit with very good intentions.
(We talk about human dignity, representation in film etc but not say, the fact most of our stuff is made by children who occasionally burn to death making it. If I were one of the billionaires running things, I would be overjoyed that people were so distracted about what a comedian said versus how our entire economic model is structured.)
Eyinah would like to have a word with you.
The cynical among us believe this pivot was deliberate.
I’ve wondered about that a lot. I think it’s more a natural consequence of social media algorithms. Surely you are more likely to reteeet/like/post something that doesn’t imply you yourself are, with your daily choices, supporting an abhorrent structure.
The lack of justice is exactly how the elite class gets the lower groups to fight each other. The thought of a unified working class would keep up every banker at night if it weren’t for apathetic privileged class claiming that social justice isn’t that important.
The thought of a unified working class would keep up every banker at night if it weren’t for apathetic privileged class claiming that social justice isn’t that important.
I think it depends on your definition of social justice. A real social justice, in my mind, would be concerned about the kids who die mining the cobalt for our phones rather than whether we should be saying latinx.
No banker or elite is scared because we now say policeperson instead of policeman.
Damn right.
A real social justice, in my mind, would be concerned about the kids who die mining the cobalt for our phones rather than whether we should be saying latinx.
With that criteria, nobody should do anything about anything until world hunger is eliminated.
People can do more than one thing at the time.
Except people don’t do more than one thing. And the frustrating part is that the very issues that depend on nothing more than simple cultural views/coolness are the ones we are ignoring.
Imagine wearing slave made clothes was as uncool as wearing a shirt with the N word or something. Companies would respond like lightning and the problem would be well underway to being solved.
Instead, we whine about the Oscars or get angry about a part of Dave Chappelle’s special. And I get it, it is MUCH easier to complain about things that necessitate zero change or effort on our part (besides complaining on twitter or agreeing with our friends about how evil whatever is.) It just annoys the hell out of me.
Except people don’t do more than one thing.
Except they do. Greedy people and responsible people exist, as well as all kinds of idiots in between.
The numbers are disheartening, yes. But no universal collectives exist.
This is the whole point of it though, you’re saying that other people should put up with being treated badly because you don’t care about them - that’s selfish but beyond that it’s very short sighted, you think you’re going to get everyone to fight to make a better society when you can’t even do the smallest thing to make people feel included?
It’s literally no effort to say police officer rather than police man, spokesperson is again no effort at all to say compared to spokesman - it’s more accurate and more inclusive, refusing makes no sense. The only reason you’d refuse is if you don’t want to acknowledge the reality that women also do those jobs, would you want to fight alongside someone who resents your existence? Who thinks you shouldn’t have the same rights and dignity as them? That’s shown even the smallest thing is too much for you to care about and that your brave new world you’re fighting for will exclude and denigrate you? Why should you?
We fight for everyone or we fight for no one
I think you misunderstand the point I’m making.It’s not that saying police officer in of itself is a bad thing, it’s that the majority of social justice is about smaller issues like that rather than actual serious things. Those smaller, albeit well intentioned issues wouldn’t be harmful in of themselves but they drown out or take the place of more serious, meaningful issues. And more irritatingly, make people feel lile they are “fighting” for real change when we’re arguing about semantics instead of the children who are maimed to support our cushy lifestyles.
Another way to think about it, it is sort of like a slave owner chiding someone for using the N word in the 1700s; that’s very enlightened but surely the slaves are the more pressing issue!
You really think we’re going to tackle large systematic problems when we can’t even agree not to use language that excludes half the population? The tiniest attempt at improving society is met by endless pushback, but sure let’s play your game - give me an ordered list of the first five things we should work on
You really think we’re going to tackle large systematic problems
I think we should at least try for real issues, like children burning to death, vs nagging people about slightly better language.
I don’t have an ordered list but like I said earlier, the women and children who die making our stuff is exactly the type of issue for which modern social justice is ideally placed. It would take nothing more than making slave made clothes uncool and then people’s buying habits change and then companies would follow for thay whole “profit” thing.
Make wearing slave made stuff as uncool as saying f****t and the rest follows.
Otherwise, you’re just patting each other on the back on twitter about being morally superior while not changing or doing anything.
Policing language is the junk food of social justice, it feels like real food and is fine in some quantities but the real harm is that it takes the place of real, nutritious/meaningful food/social change.
Otherwise, you’re just patting each other on the back on twitter about being morally superior while not changing or doing anything.
Isn’t this exactly what you are doing? You are debating that there are more important things so it isn’t important to think of the ‘little stuff’. So, instead of using inclusive language, which would be ‘changing or doing anything’, you are arguing there is a more morally superior thing to focus on.
The thing is you can’t provide “justice” to all. A society will always have conflicting beliefs and some things just aren’t worth fight for. Like when people were trying to make Latinx a thing. And like someone else posted not all immigrants are going to agree with a minority movement just because they are a minority.
For one month of each year, traffic should have to go in reverse
—edit
As in backwards
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I spend like 5 hours a day commuting and so I contemplate a lot of oddities I suppose. Over the years getting weirder (or more practical, depending).
It’s so many things I don’t know where to start, I suppose it started simple with things like people loving their cars too much and taking different aspects of driving (entitlement, rage etc). To car insurance through to organisational behaviour. Environment to natural attrition. Changes in the societal pattern and behaviours.
Times that by like, way too long thinking about what a world like that might be like, and I am where I am…
From the negatives I think of I always see something that makes me think the net positive is worth the exchange
Oh and it’s for a month…
And not really car culture but broadly ‘car’, anything discouraging me being on one side of the road driving to where you live and you on the other driving to where I live always ends up net positive
I probably should not post random things on the internet lol… 🤦🏻 there’s a lot of nuance. Obviously it’s only applied in certain areas (cities with certain congestion limits etc.).
My wife hates the idea, that’s really why it’s unpopular… she’s pretty much vetoed it I think under a subcategory of stupidity. I say that because it’s not even my craziest idea so it can’t be that…
Hence why I posted it, had no where to spew it out and I’m trying not to lurk as much to support lemmy 🙃
Other disclaimer would have to include I think of these things generally in the midst of the most boring mind numbing, or raging kill filled times of my day. But I’d have an answer to most questions I could ever think of and I’m still in camp reversedrive.
So just know when your on that road… there’s some idiot out there driving the other way thinking “we should be going the other way”
Nothing in particular. I would imagine car enthusiasts will have the same decisions as others. Some of them will just keep cars garaged for the month. Others might embrace it and start pimping the back of their cars. All sorts of in betweens. Some might even try modes of transport they never thought they would.
On my own, petty, individual level, it might mean next time we’re doing the 10km an hour crawl in peak hour it won’t be because someone is acting like a side panel ding is a reason to not pull off the road properly
Agreed
Lawful evil
What does this mean.
Backwards, if that makes more sense
Wait what?
As in backwards lol… I’ll make an edit
I still don’t get it
Like for one month of the year, reverse gear in your car is what you will be using to get to work.
That any better?
And what should have happened then?
Or do you mean that the entire circumstances of it being necessary shouldn’t have been.
Also… Besides their current government shifting towards being basically Nazis, why not?
Not the OP, but the reasons for creating a country of the other people’s land was basically religious, that makes it automatically a mistake.
No jews actually are considered a “race” because the only way to actually become Jewish is to be born from a Jewish mother.
And other peoples land? You know how many times that place of earth switched hands? How far do you need to go back to “rightfully” own land?
I don’t care. They’re using idiotic arguments to justify atrocities. They get zero sympathy from me.
They as in jews in general or the Israeli government? 🤨
The latter. And those who adhere, of course.
The refugees get sent back to their original towns where they can, taken in by allied nations, or taking land from Germany or other axis power as reparation.
Instead they took land from a nation not even involved in the war with the express purpose of forming an ethnostate, not even just for the displaced Jews.
Sorry but that wasn’t a nation, it was a British colony, your entire point is invalid because they got land from them…
The refugees get sent back to their original towns where they can, taken in by allied nations, or taking land from Germany or other axis power as reparation.
You literally said the allied countrys should take them… They did.
Oh you mean allies of the jews?
So nobody in this world?
Stop shifting the goalposts. Israel is legit and the only way to prevent another holocaust. Their government right now is a different story. And a “Palestine” country doesn’t exist. Its a terrorist organization.
People here don’t know anything about tech regulation or privacy even though they pretend to and almost every criticism I see is just straight up wrong. And I’m a data engineer who works in tech focused on privacy.
Reject society, become a hermit, and move to the woods off grid, because otherwise you can’t.
Sure, you can refuse to sign up for every big tech company that does targeted advertising, but if you want to participate in society at some point you’ll need to join a financial institution and you’ll probably need insurance. I’ve worked in insurance and by nature the data collected is way more personal and intrusive than anything needed for targeted advertising, but they can fly under the radar because everyone is laser focused on targeted advertising tech companies right now. Imo the most concerning data leaks of our time have been financial institutions like Equifax, which everyone forgot about almost immediately, but we’re still obsessing over which of your personal preferences Google knows.
But for the vast majority of people, none if this really matters, because on a personal level nobody actually gives a shit about you.
I’ll end it with a disclaimer that there are exceptions (e.g. if you’re looking for an out of state abortion in America use E2E encrypted apps) and overall I do think privacy regulations like the GDPR and CCPA have made good progress across the industry into keeping sensitive data safe, but the community on Lemmy is looking for big tech blood that they’ll never get.
if you’re looking for an out of state abortion in America use E2E encrypted apps
Even talking about it at all on non e2ee apps can get you caught, not just “hey doc…” but even “hey ma, I’m gonna…” Know what though? We can expand this to any crime, seditious materials, not wanting the contents of your messages to be stored in perpetuity in case something like abortion laws change or databases get hacked or seized. And not every country is the US btw, some people in this world need Tor to access Facebook without being sent to Lake Laogai. Not to mention, the NSA, FBI, and CIA, love that they can buy your data in bulk, they don’t want to go back to needing warrants, personally, I like warrants, as they have to at least ask a judge and it at least ostensibly has to be for a reason, as opposed to “here’s $50 gimme data.” Btw while we’re talking about buying data, did you hear about the fact that you can buy life360 data for a neighborhood at $45, and this data tells you when people usually leave the house/come back from work, and you or me could buy this data and use it to rob every life360 user in the neighborhood. Sure we don’t know who we’re robbing, but we do know that it’s 2pm and nobody will be home for another 4hr.
If you don’t like or need privacy, please post your credit card numbers, exp date, sec code, full address, and SSN, medical records, and leave that door unlocked for me, but trying to convince me there’s no reason to be mad about it or to try and limit the scope of their warrantless surveillance ain’t gonna work, it is a problem that needs fixing, not apathy.
This comment is just filled with the misinformation I’m taking about
What exactly is misinfo?
Edit: Downvote, but not expound upon your point? Seems to me that is a tacit admission of a lack of truth. Especially considering everything I referenced is known to be true, not some conspiracy theory, if all you’ve said is “misinformation” but can’t explain how I’ll have to trust the sources.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/9/22820381/tile-life360-location-tracking-data-privacy
Even talking about it at all on non e2ee apps can get you caught, not just “hey doc…” but even “hey ma, I’m gonna…”
No, that’s not how E2EE works.
Not to mention, the NSA, FBI, and CIA, love that they can buy your data in bulk
They can’t, this is illegal in the majority of first world countries.
Btw while we’re talking about buying data, did you hear about the fact that you can buy life360 data for a neighborhood at $45
Life360 only shares aggregated data with 3rd parties, not personal data.
and this data tells you when people usually leave the house/come back from work, and you or me could buy this data and use it to rob every life360 user in the neighborhood.
Lol no it doesn’t
If you don’t like or need privacy
Never said I don’t need or like privacy, it’s literally my job and I’m quite passionate about it. I said people here share bullshit misinformation, which you just did. Your sources prove absolutely none of your claims.
No, that’s not how E2EE works.
Uhh, yeah it is. E2ee (with keys controlled by the users) does “work” by keeping your conversation data encrypted (assuming the encryption isn’t cracked and the keys aren’t held by attacker). Messages that are not e2ee are not encrypted, so they can be read without breaking the encryption they don’t have simply by obtaining a warrant or in some cases simply requesting (by the government).
It literally is “the whole point” of e2ee, that is how it works.
They can’t, this is illegal in the majority of first world countries.
They can and do. Have another link.
From the text:
In November, Vice reported that US Special Operations Command had purchased location data collected by a third-party data broker from an Islamic prayer app called Muslim Pro. The app maker later said it would stop selling its users’ location data. The same month, the US Department of Homeland Security came under investigation by its inspector general after Buzzfeed reported an internal memo showed it was collecting phone location data without warrants for immigration enforcement.
Life360 only shares aggregated data with 3rd parties, not personal data
I disagree, I think that knowing my every move throughout the day is personal, whether they know my name or not, they know where I sleep, they know where I work, they know where I hang out, that is pretty personal. Not to mention if you know who lives in “House A” and you buy the location data for the area “House A” is in, you have just deanonymized them and can now use it for stalking purposes.
Lol no it doesn’t
You sure about that?
Listen you say you do this for a living, but you provide no sources debunking the claims, the DHS isn’t even denying they do it, their lawyer is claiming it is legal, they literally admit it, idk what else to tell you man, it looks like they do. From the life 360 TOS:
G. De-Identified Information We may share with third parties, including advertisers and service providers, anonymized, aggregated and/or anonymous data we collect about you and other members, such as de-identified demographic information, de-identified location information, and information about the computer or device from which you access our Services, or the results of hashing your email address.
They literally admit to selling location data, even if it is “de-identified” that still means my home address can be easily figured out, my name isn’t the problem, the problem is the “precise location data” they admit to selling. Sorry my dude but it all seems to be the case.
I’ll end it with a disclaimer that there are exceptions
So your whole rant is false?
Because of exceptions? No
idk I mostly agree with you. Although, how do the insurance companies collect that information? I know there’s car insurance apps that sense how good your driving is, but other than that is it mostly just datamining of publicly available documents etc like those background check or people finder sites do?
I worked in Canadian health benefits, everything you submit is data. Not just your SIN and address, but which drugs you’re on, which paramedicals you use, all that good stuff.
When I signed up for life insurance they came and took my blood to run tests too, that’s pretty personal lol.
at least you mostly know what data insurance companies get though, with tech its somewhere between all of your internet activity ever, and nothing because its too expensive.
personally it seems worth it to me to avoid large tech companies simply because I have the time to deal with some lost convenience, and if they are storing everything then they will have less on me, and if they aren’t, well I’ve learned loads about IT, and its been kinda fun.
I have a feeling this is the case for any technical subject that happens to be diiscussed on social media. Mostly everything I read about my own domain of expertise is often flat out wrong, but repeated with such confidence and appeal to authority that it makes you wonder what else here is wrong.
Duning Kruger baby!
Yep, it is always those with just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Some guy who watched a youtube video, took a 101 class, or just started in the field. It is crazy really, and of course it is very hard to convince those people of anything because sometime the wiser, non-newbie opinion will seem overkill to them since they believe the issue to be very simple and clear-cut.
In my country (Australia), they should increase the number of seats in government.
It hasn’t been done since the early 80s when the population was half of what it is now. Your member therefore can be more active, a smaller electorate means less emails and letters to sift through, less stress from staff, and more representative of a progressive voting base.
But this gets so easily dismissed as increasing bureaucracy and big government.
We’ve got the same problem in the US, so I feel you
I think your federal government will operate more effectively with say 1000 seats in the congress and 200 senators. More senators you could asume better laws will be passed quicker, corruption is less effective as it’s more expensive with more lawmakers, and factions of parties (say progressive vs moderate democrats) can band larger coalitions.
This is just my opinion though, a big government does have downsides.
Dogs suck ass. All of them can go to hell. No one actually likes their dog or takes care of them as they should. I can not understand how anyone could want to handle man sizes poos on the regular, or listen to a single bark it’s so annoying.
Most people love their dogs. If you’ve never had a pet you should try a cat. Bonding with a pet changed my life. But I hate people who let dogs off leash or don’t clean up after them.
Upvote because i understand, not because i agree.
My people.
People get dogs because they want something that loves them unconditionally despite their shortcomings. I hear people say cats are “too independent” or getting recommended a dog despite not having the time to train and care for it. Most people are horrible pet owners out of sheer laziness.
If anything it shows how fucked priorities are for the person.
Water is wet.
Because of cohesion.Water is. Or isn’t it?
Best explanation I’ve ever heard. Kudos.
The stuffing is the worst part of an Oreo.
Oh dang that’s really unpopular
Oreos taste terrible in general. Like burnt cocoa dough with sugar paste.
I dislike the white filling, but I feel like the black cookie has some mysterious aroma that makes it really attractive, something unlike anything else I’ve smelled (doesn’t remind me of burned cocoa).
The Oreo is the worst part of the Oreo. I can’t believe people actually put these things in their mouths.
