NSFW Archived F_ckOffGoogle.de >> Germans Launch an Overtly Sassy Anti-Google Website (fuckoffgoogle.de)
submitted ago by ghost_of_aswartz
Posted by: ghost_of_aswartz
Posting time: 1.3 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 12/2/2019 10:00:00 AM
Views: 55
SCP: 25
26 upvotes, 1 downvotes (96% upvoted it)
NSFW Archived F_ckOffGoogle.de >> Germans Launch an Overtly Sassy Anti-Google Website (fuckoffgoogle.de)
submitted ago by ghost_of_aswartz
view the rest of the comments →
[–] redtoe_skipper ago (edited ago)
Some questions are fit for answering, some are not. Your question belongs to the latter. Especially, because you did answer your own question. Apparently, you do not have the mental fortitude to recognize that. That's okay. I will "patronizingly" expand on my response for two reasons:
Because it amuses (sic) me (how patronizing!)
Maybe it will help you identify how to employ sound reasoning and hence, your responses. (how patronizing! See 3 + 4 Cardinal Virtues.)
Someone promotes awareness of what Google is doing. Whether that person is of a communistic persuasion or a middle of the road type of person, is totally irrelevant. Because, when investigating the matter, Google is doing what Google is doing. Fact! (Another example may be: communist produced AK-47's. Does that mean AK-47 are bad? Or have you moved on to Shintoism, that all goods also have a kami, and thus AK-47's are communists?)
Their proposed solution is a Unix variant as an Operating System (OS), instead of Android (Google) or Microsoft, Apple. There are basically three variants to such an OS and the Software Package (SP) deployed on top of the OS, based on grading levels of what free actually means and is. (See Software Licenses and why it matters; See Humancentipad, Southpark)
Personally, I use Mint and Kali Linux and I do not pay a dime to use it. However, those that develop these OS and SP, perform a social service. Of course, there usually is also a commercial variant, but this usually is rather employed in a more consultancy/ development role on specific deployment. And I grace them with a donation to support their efforts on the social service side. So, it is free, as in non commercial, but not free in the sense that it takes effort to produce a sound OS + SP, depending on the philosophy behind it.
Their philosophy is based on personal freedom and privacy enhancement. There is nothing communistic in that view, as the communist manifesto is completely opposed to these views.
This is not to say, the things they develop might not be used in furtherance of a different goal, like breaking up big tech to undermine capitalism. Actually, what they seem to be aiming for, is ending a form of crony capitalism. Communists in general aim to bring all means of production under control of the state to usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat (sounds important this piece of identity politics), as you are probably well aware. Means of production include people, which effectively means, people become owned by the State, or slaves.
But hey, who pays attention to details, right? The law of nature, or the philosophy of liberty, dictates you own that part of nature you transformed with your own means of production = private property rights. From this it can be deduced that a certain field of tension exists between private and public property, and what this actually means in a free society. Of course, an intelligent discussion can be had on this subject, and there probably is not one answer when taking each society into the equation.
You profess to have been a communist. And I value your honesty in this, though, I am not surprised. I took a look at the way you employ language, and I saw the following:
*1. Judgement without knowledge and will to attain a deeper understanding.
*2. And I will quote you:
Don't tell your granny how to suck eggs. = You command me
You really should chill out = You commanding me, again.
Patronising dweeb. = You calling me names (Ad Hominem= logical fallacy)
I used to be one, that's how I know who they are = Call to authority( = logical fallacy)
I didn't think you could answer my question = Is a smart way to say: I am an arrogant ignoramus caught in public with my panties in a twist (argument from incredulity).
*3. When taking into context, your grammar is off. Because, you wrote in in a past tense, indicating a changed view, or differently put, you having found reason to change your initial view. But I am not under the impression you actually did change your mind. Meaning, "didn't" ought to be struck and replaced by "don't", and may be strengthened by a strategically placed "still", because you clearly have not changed your mind. This means: present continuous. Even in German you would not be using a phrase that way: "Ich denke noch immer nicht, dass du meine Frage beantworten kannst", as opposed to what you said: "I hatte nicht gedacht, dass du meine Frage beantworten konntest". At the very least, this indicates confusion.
*4. Dweep = an unattractive, insignificant, or inept person. => Since you have not met me, you know nothing about me. Although, you can deduce from my writing certain properties I have attained over the course of my life, at best: unattractive and insignificant are at best a biased point of view. As to inept, or lacking sense of reason or incompetent, given the context, it is hardly applicable. This is why I used the designation of you as arrogant (= exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an dictatorial manner (@2).
Patronizing = a superior ruler .... Meaning, you perceive me to operate from a "I will tell you what to do/ think"position.
Indeed, I did not agree with your labeling. So what? That does not make me incompetent, is it? Instead, I gave you an avenue to learn a thing or two. Whether you do, that is your choice. For those reading my response, it may open a totally new field of view.
I am not telling you what to think, but rather, where you might find more data that bears on the subject at hand. Because privacy, not only vectors to Big tech, but also vectors to criminals who abuse trust. The article I referenced shows you how privacy tools can be used to your advantage instead of your detriment. But since you refuse to take a second and deeper look into the matter, based on preconceptions, you remain willfully nescient = ignorant. If that is patronizing and being a dweeb, I embrace it fully.
And that brings me to point 5.
*5. Clearly, you are projecting with name calling. Your judgments say more about you than me.
This results in you having not given any intelligent support for your initial response. It may be, you have known these people personally in your previous life, although I doubt that, as you did not indicate such. Even if you had, that argument still suffers from a non sequitur. But, if you have changed your views, is it out of the ordinary other people also may have changed their views over time?
[–] Scablifter ago
Pilpul.