Mailchimp Shuts Down GreenMedInfo’s Newsletter for “Anti-Vaccine” Content

[Swordsmyth]

Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove (namely, that this snooping is a bad thing, not "neutral," an "attack").

Some leftist could just as well make a fuzzy claim about how A taking B's job is "not neutral," "an attack."

B's job belonged to his employer not to B.
His privacy belonged to him.

[r3volution 3.0]

B's job belonged to his employer not to B.
His privacy belonged to him.

Again, begging the question...

If you're trying to demonstrate that A "owns" information about himself, assuming that he does doesn't get you anywhere.

How would you respond to a leftist who insisted that B "owns" his job?

[Swordsmyth]

Again, begging the question...

If you're trying to demonstrate that A "owns" information about himself, assuming that he does doesn't get you anywhere.

How would you respond to a leftist who insisted that B "owns" his job?

The boss created the job, I create my data.

[r3volution 3.0]

The boss created the job, I create my data.

Ah, a new fuzzy concept: "creation."



The data which A has exists in his own skull, and never existed anywhere else, right?

He didn't crack open B's skull and scoop something out, did he?

[Swordsmyth]

Ah, a new fuzzy concept: "creation."



The data which A has exists in his own skull, and never existed anywhere else, right?

He didn't crack open B's skull and scoop something out, did he?

The data is my actions, no actions means no data.

[r3volution 3.0]

The data is my actions, no actions means no data.

If I don't write this post, you won't write a response; therefore, I created your response; therefore, I own it?

[Swordsmyth]

If I don't write this post, you won't write a response; therefore, I created your response; therefore, I own it?

My response isn't your data, your post is your data.

[r3volution 3.0]

My response isn't your data, your post is your data.

You said:

no actions means no data

Likewise, no post by me means no response by you.

And then of course, to carry on brilliant idea, I suppose all our posts are owned by Bryan, or Al Gore, or Westinghouse.

...I mean, if causing something means owning it, that's the conclusion, no?

[Swordsmyth]

You said:



Likewise, no post by me means no response by you.

And then of course, to carry on brilliant idea, I suppose all our posts are owned by Bryan, or Al Gore, or Westinghouse.

...I mean, if causing something means owning it, that's the conclusion, no?

I could post a million posts without you ever posting and I might never respond to your post.
There is a difference between "causing" and "creating", I create my data by acting and therefor I own it.

[r3volution 3.0]

I could post a million posts without you ever posting and I might never respond to your post.

Sure, but if you do respond, I own that response (by your logic) because my post was a necessary condition for your response.

...i.e. you can't respond to a post I didn't make.

Likewise, B's action is a necessary condition for A to gain information about those actions, therefore B owns the information.

If you don't like the posting example, how about this:
--someone sold B food, without which he would have died and been unable to take any action, therefore that person owns the data

There is a difference between "causing" and "creating", I create my data by acting and therefor I own it.

You said that B created the data about his actions BECAUSE, without his action, there could be no data.

[Swordsmyth]

Sure, but if you do respond, I own that response (by your logic) because my post was a necessary condition for your response.

...i.e. you can't respond to a post I didn't make.

Likewise, B's action is a necessary condition for A to gain information about those actions, therefore B owns the information.

If you don't like the posting example, how about this:
--someone sold B food, without which he would have died and been unable to take any action, therefore that person owns the data



You said that B created the data about his actions BECAUSE, without his action, there could be no data.

You can't extend it out to an infinite number of connected occurrences, you only own what you create
I didn't say "because", I gave the fact that without the actions there would be no data as evidence beyond the obvious, we all know that my actions are something I created and you are just playing word games.

[r3volution 3.0]

You can't extend it out to an infinite number of connected occurrences, you only own what you create

The problem gets more silly the more causal steps back you go, but the root of the problem is that you're using causation at all.

"I acted, you can't have gotten the data without me acting, therefore I own the data."

"I sold you a chicken, you couldn't have traded the chicken for a pig without me selling you the chicken, therefore I own the pig."

Both are absurd, both follow your logic.

I didn't say "because", I gave the fact that without the actions there would be no data as evidence beyond the obvious

Evidence that the actor owns the data, right?

we all know that my actions are something I created and you are just playing word games.

LOL, right, I'm playing word games.

You just invented a whole new (absurd) theory of property on the fly to rationalize your position.

If you want to insist on a "right to privacy," you'd do better to just state it as a principle, acknowledge that it violates property rights, and leave it there, rather than trying to redefine the whole concept of property rights in such a way that you can claim this "right to privacy" is really a property right. This is much like what you've attempted (equally unsuccessfully) to do with national sovereignty: redefining property rights to make things which are clearly property rights violations (restricting immigration) sound like expressions of property rights (this mystical "territorial rights" mumbo jumbo).

[Swordsmyth]

The problem gets more silly the more causal steps back you go, but the root of the problem is that you're using causation at all.

"I acted, you can't have gotten the data without me acting, therefore I own the data."

"I sold you a chicken, you couldn't have traded the chicken for a pig without me selling you the chicken, therefore I own the pig."

Both are absurd, both follow your logic.

No, you are playing stupid games again.
I hatched a chicken, I didn't trade it to you, so if you trade it for a pig I do own the pig.

Evidence that the actor owns the data, right?

Evidence, not the root cause.
If the data could have existed without their action the claim to ownership would be much weaker.

[r3volution 3.0]

If the data could have existed without their action the claim to ownership would be much weaker.

Weaker, but still there?

[jmdrake]

Well said



Is it?

Suppose I walk up to you on the street and say: "Hi, I'm r3v, my consumer preferences are such and such."

You go sell this information to an advertising company, without my permission.

I fail to see how you violated my property rights (intellectual or otherwise).

I meant to say "Tech companies should NOT be able to hold onto your data."

That said, I'm no so much bothered by the re-sale of my information (though it should be with permission) as I am with the fact that it's not always easy to "take my ball and go home" if I want to do so. For example, if you've stored all of your photos on Instagram and they decide to "de-platform" you, then you just lose everything. Also, understand I'm not saying the government should step in. Rather I am saying it's time for individuals to demand a different set of expectations from tech companies.

But back to your "sell my information" example. If enough people chose cloud platforms that in their contracts guaranteed not to sell information then the companies that do sell information would ultimately have to comply or go out of business. Getting people to actually understand and demand such rights is a challenge though.

[jmdrake]

Again, begging the question...

If you're trying to demonstrate that A "owns" information about himself, assuming that he does doesn't get you anywhere.

How would you respond to a leftist who insisted that B "owns" his job?

That cuts both ways. There are aspects of an employee's "job" that he absolutely owns such as his acquired skills, training, licenses etc. I live in a "right to work" state which means that there is no forced unionization (employers love that), but non-compete agreements are disfavored (some employers HATE that part).

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

No this is how it works, private businesses can discriminate against someone unless it's a leftist, then they get sued for discrimination to the point they have to close down their business.

[UWDude]

No this is how it works, private businesses can discriminate against someone unless it's a leftist, then they get sued for discrimination to the point they have to close down their business.

Also, they are private businesses, although they are publicly traded on the stock market, along with all the protections and guarantees that affords.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm not saying the government should step in.

Then we agree.

Rather I am saying it's time for individuals to demand a different set of expectations from tech companies.

Well, that's up to them.

Personally, I won't be using social media regardless of whether any of these issues are resolved.

There are aspects of an employee's "job" that he absolutely owns such as his acquired skills, training...

Property rights pertain only to physical things. It doesn't make sense to talk about owning a skill (the ability to take an action) or training (a past event), unless this is a euphemism for ownership of some physical thing (like that portion of the employer's cash which the employee intends to steal through some farcical legal action should the employer "steal" his job/skills/training by firing him). Incidentally, it's the same with labor; a laborer does not own his labor (this statement doesn't make sense), he owns whatever physical stuff he gets in exchange for it.

[jmdrake]

Then we agree.



Well, that's up to them.

Personally, I won't be using social media regardless of whether any of these issues are resolved.



Property rights pertain only to physical things. It doesn't make sense to talk about owning a skill (the ability to take an action) or training (a past event), unless this is a euphemism for ownership of some physical thing (like that portion of the employer's cash which the employee intends to steal through some farcical legal action should the employer "steal" his job/skills/training by firing him). Incidentally, it's the same with labor; a laborer does not own his labor (this statement doesn't make sense), he owns whatever physical stuff he gets in exchange for it.

You snipped out part of what I wrote so that you didn't have to deal with the facts of what I am saying. I will re-post to give you a change to be intellectually honest this time.

That cuts both ways. There are aspects of an employee's "job" that he absolutely owns such as his acquired skills, training, licenses etc. I live in a "right to work" state which means that there is no forced unionization (employers love that), but non-compete agreements are disfavored (some employers HATE that part).

Non-compete agreements are a real thing, whether you wish to address it or not. Employers (some) try to prevent employees who quit or are fired from using their training, skills, labor, etc in the service of someone else. Most states only allow that in very limited circumstances.

[r3volution 3.0]

You snipped out part of what I wrote so that you didn't have to deal with the facts of what I am saying

I stopped reading at this point.

You're mistaken; there isn't anything that you understand that I don't.

...and I'm offended that you tell me that I didn't consider what you had to say.

Try again.

[jmdrake]

I stopped reading at this point.

You're mistaken; there isn't anything that you understand that I don't.

...and I'm offended that you tell me that I didn't consider what you had to say.

Try again.

Be offended all you want. But you aren't at all being logical at this point.