|
Conspiracy Theories / Noids in General (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Realist |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Remove the name calling and you still have no argument. You resorted to citing DMCA abuses as something that supports your measly attempt at even making an argument. If you had 100 companies with DMCA abuses coming at you, that in theory, could all win, what would you do as a company? You would take the "safe" alternative and comply. Are you that dense to not see that? |
A company as rich as google chooses to do so. They cower in the corner and remove these search results. If they were truly, a company who's motto is, "Don't be evil", you would think they would bring most of these (Abuses) people to court stating that it is unethical to remove information from the internet, regardless of copyright laws. Google could make an excellent argument, but they choose to censor and deny us the right to gather information. Forget their willing censorship in China, Thailand, Germany, and France... They censor here because they are afraid of losing a few pennies in a lawsuit.
My right to have all information at my fingertips is more important than their profit.
Are you done yet? I've pointed out my argument. I've provided sources and not just DMCA complaints. All you've done if try to argue for their wrongdoings with your uneducated opinion. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
Evolution once was (and still is to some) a conspiracy created by evil scientists against the church. |
It has never been a conspiracy theory. As a matter of fact, "The Origin of Species" was criticised, even by church officials on scientific grounds, even though most of the reviews were positive.
If anything, what really put Darwin in a difficult situation was his later emphasis on "sexual selection", because people just didn't know what the hell he meant any more. And the later debate about how evolution disproved Christianity... Charlie never saw it coming :p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Realist
A company as rich as google chooses to do so. They cower in the corner and remove these search results. If they were truly, a company who's motto is, "Don't be evil", you would think they would bring most of these (Abuses) people to court stating that it is unethical to remove information from the internet, regardless of copyright laws. Google could make an excellent argument, but they choose to censor and deny us the right to gather information. Forget their willing censorship in China, Thailand, Germany, and France... They censor here because they are afraid of losing a few pennies in a lawsuit.
My right to have all information at my fingertips is more important than their profit.
Are you done yet? I've pointed out my argument. I've provided sources and not just DMCA complaints. All you've done if try to argue for their wrongdoings with your uneducated opinion. |
Since when is a privately-owned company that makes the internet more accessible for millions "evil" because they aren't doing enough by people like you?
Whatever restrictions Google puts in place in Thailand, they are still bringing a ginormous amount of information that couldn't otherwise be accessed there. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Realist
A company as rich as google chooses to do so. They cower in the corner and remove these search results. If they were truly, a company who's motto is, "Don't be evil", you would think they would bring most of these (Abuses) people to court stating that it is unethical to remove information from the internet, regardless of copyright laws. Google could make an excellent argument, but they choose to censor and deny us the right to gather information. Forget their willing censorship in China, Thailand, Germany, and France... They censor here because they are afraid of losing a few pennies in a lawsuit.
My right to have all information at my fingertips is more important than their profit.
Are you done yet? I've pointed out my argument. I've provided sources and not just DMCA complaints. All you've done if try to argue for their wrongdoings with your uneducated opinion. |
Furthermore, since when do you have a "right" to use their unrestricted services for free?
The internet is certainly not a right - much less the ability to access a certain webpage through a privately-owned search engine. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
I see this as a conflict of belief - of faith, if you will.
Conspiracy theory is not all that dissimilar to theology in that they both rely on a certain brand of evidence to support them. Theory draws from visible examples and, as stated before, draws a conclusion based upon either observation or established information - the conclusion, of course, being the source of debate both within the realms of wild conspiracy or even within the scientific community. Religion also uses "evidence" as the conclusion that God exists and presides over mankind - people see miracles and say "there, there is your evidence of a higher power"; people want to believe in this evidence because it confirms something within them - it's something subjective, of course, but many find that it elicits hope or appeal to authority or direction or whatever other reason people grip onto their beliefs over. And who can say what is right? Clearly there are some veeeery...fringe... conclusions within the realms of conspiracy theory, and perhaps a bit of actual paranoia, but it all stems from a comparably humanistic need to believe in things which establishment cannot "prove" by its own means.
I, myself, run scriptblocker on Firefox and have noticed that "googleanalytics" is everywhere I go - so far as I can tell, it is a program which compiles search information and then prescribes supposed demographic-specific ads on websites. There, benign, I'm sure Google profts just fine off of this by leasing their services to advertising companies - why would they need to sell private information to the Government? Why would there need to be some shadowy conspiracy concerning this when they quite obviously make a very tidy profit off of their public dealings? True, companies are out to make a profit, but don't you think they take an unnecessary risk as a company dealing out people's personal data for... uh, criminal profiling purposes? Why would they need to do that? I would just as soon direct these questions towards shadowy Government conspiracies - why would they go through all of the effort? Why the conspiracy? Governments achieve public goals through public means [aka brute force] so why a grand conspiracy obviously involving several thousands of members sworn to secrecy yet so easily figured out by unwashed basement dwellers with an internet connection? Obviously there are certain unpopular yet empowered agendas working in any large government seeking to achieve results specific to their aims, but why, oh why, are they so apparently ing terrible at keeping it a secret?
Is it because people are so obviously indifferent? That clearly, the "truth" is dismissed as paranoid theory and surreptitious factions can manipulate whomever they want on whatever scale they want by only a thin veil of misdirection?
I don't really believe that.
But that's the funny thing about beliefs: it doesn't really matter what most people believe or disbelieve - not everything is subjective. There is a certain truth to almost all things, and this fact does not hinge on collective faith. Yet, what people believe does matter in the sense that people act upon these same impulses of faith remiss of empirical study - that "fact", as we know it, can change if enough people believe it to be counter to establishment and that this radical dynamic can achieve results just as extreme as any supposed plot to blind the masses.
It's really no surprise that people feel as though they are being watched in this day and age. They are. It's the panopticon effect that makes people act in line or brush their teeth or pray to Santa Clause every night. Are there people watching us, planning our individual downfall, ready to hit a button to send us into oblivion? The threat of this day and age lies in the mind and, as a society, I feel as though we are degrading in this respect - we are fearful of outside threats so we set up our cameras, scanners, to see. But a scanner sees darkly, don't you think? |
|
|
| elFreak |
| Tupac killed Bob Marley;) |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Realist
A company as rich as google chooses to do so. They cower in the corner and remove these search results. If they were truly, a company who's motto is, "Don't be evil", you would think they would bring most of these (Abuses) people to court stating that it is unethical to remove information from the internet, regardless of copyright laws. Google could make an excellent argument, but they choose to censor and deny us the right to gather information. Forget their willing censorship in China, Thailand, Germany, and France... They censor here because they are afraid of losing a few pennies in a lawsuit.
My right to have all information at my fingertips is more important than their profit.
Are you done yet? I've pointed out my argument. I've provided sources and not just DMCA complaints. All you've done if try to argue for their wrongdoings with your uneducated opinion. |
You seem to not understand that fighting a select few lawsuits can easily result in the death of a company. Surely, you are probably unaware that Microsoft has been in this position a few times. They were almost broken up, a judgment was handed down for a lawsuit that would have surely given away the farm and then some, yet both of those were either struck down or watered down. The difference in these types of lawsuits were they were dealing with monopolistic practices.
Copyright and Trademark infringement law on the other hand, is very murky. If you knew anything about the current P2P cases that have and are currently going through the legal system, this is not something Google nor Microsoft, with all their billions in cash, could fight in 100 courts, 100 different cases, etc. They took the "easy" way out so that they could survive as a company and continue to serve you as a customer.
Are you really that dense and can't see that? They aren't going to stop servicing people just because they have to succumb to a few small concessions. They will use those concessions to their advance their agenda. If that means they have to temporarily filter content to places like Thailand, China, etc. then so be it. You can talk all you want about Google being evil, but it is you that is paranoid for the worst possible reason. That they are conspiring to do harm |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I see this as a conflict of belief - of faith, if you will.
Conspiracy theory is not all that dissimilar to theology in that they both rely on a certain brand of evidence to support them. Theory draws from visible examples and, as stated before, draws a conclusion based upon either observation or established information - the conclusion, of course, being the source of debate both within the realms of wild conspiracy or even within the scientific community. Religion also uses "evidence" as the conclusion that God exists and presides over mankind - people see miracles and say "there, there is your evidence of a higher power"; people want to believe in this evidence because it confirms something within them - it's something subjective, of course, but many find that it elicits hope or appeal to authority or direction or whatever other reason people grip onto their beliefs over. And who can say what is right? Clearly there are some veeeery...fringe... conclusions within the realms of conspiracy theory, and perhaps a bit of actual paranoia, but it all stems from a comparably humanistic need to believe in things which establishment cannot "prove" by its own means.
I, myself, run scriptblocker on Firefox and have noticed that "googleanalytics" is everywhere I go - so far as I can tell, it is a program which compiles search information and then prescribes supposed demographic-specific ads on websites. There, benign, I'm sure Google profts just fine off of this by leasing their services to advertising companies - why would they need to sell private information to the Government? Why would there need to be some shadowy conspiracy concerning this when they quite obviously make a very tidy profit off of their public dealings? True, companies are out to make a profit, but don't you think they take an unnecessary risk as a company dealing out people's personal data for... uh, criminal profiling purposes? Why would they need to do that? I would just as soon direct these questions towards shadowy Government conspiracies - why would they go through all of the effort? Why the conspiracy? Governments achieve public goals through public means [aka brute force] so why a grand conspiracy obviously involving several thousands of members sworn to secrecy yet so easily figured out by unwashed basement dwellers with an internet connection? Obviously there are certain unpopular yet empowered agendas working in any large government seeking to achieve results specific to their aims, but why, oh why, are they so apparently ing terrible at keeping it a secret?
Is it because people are so obviously indifferent? That clearly, the "truth" is dismissed as paranoid theory and surreptitious factions can manipulate whomever they want on whatever scale they want by only a thin veil of misdirection?
I don't really believe that.
But that's the funny thing about beliefs: it doesn't really matter what most people believe or disbelieve - not everything is subjective. There is a certain truth to almost all things, and this fact does not hinge on collective faith. Yet, what people believe does matter in the sense that people act upon these same impulses of faith remiss of empirical study - that "fact", as we know it, can change if enough people believe it to be counter to establishment and that this radical dynamic can achieve results just as extreme as any supposed plot to blind the masses.
It's really no surprise that people feel as though they are being watched in this day and age. They are. It's the panopticon effect that makes people act in line or brush their teeth or pray to Santa Clause every night. Are there people watching us, planning our individual downfall, ready to hit a button to send us into oblivion? The threat of this day and age lies in the mind and, as a society, I feel as though we are degrading in this respect - we are fearful of outside threats so we set up our cameras, scanners, to see. But a scanner sees darkly, don't you think? |
You had me until the cliche in the last line. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You had me until the cliche in the last line. |
It was a literary allusion - the book was about neuroticism and paranoia in consumer post-drug culture. I guess you could say it was cliche, but it was still entirely relevant. |
|
|
| Realist |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Furthermore, since when do you have a "right" to use their unrestricted services for free?
The internet is certainly not a right - much less the ability to access a certain webpage through a privately-owned search engine. |
The internet used to be the information highway. Now it's just a corporate highway.
Hell, there is even ISP level filtering on the internet now.
It's not what it used to be. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Comcast and AT&T come to mind as companies who practically offered the Government free access to server information for tracking individuals. The tools to oppress are certainly there, how do you think they will use them? |
|
|
| Krypton |
I am paid to disseminate NWO propaganda on a dance music website.
| quote: | | quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
That's fine, and I respect that. I tend to agree with the NOVA documentary "Why the Towers Fell". [concerning 9/11] |
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Probably because you either lack the ability to discern fact from fiction and establishment propaganda from truth or you're here because you're being paid to perpetuate the ongoing fraud against humanity.
I'm not making a definitive claim one way or the other but those are really the only two options that I see as being viable.
As I've said before, we've all been caught in a web of deception but it appears that you actively seek to masquerade it's threads (lies) as truths, just as a loyal employee of the Orwellian Ministry of Truth would. |
|
|
|
|
|
