• ddnomad@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d not expect the private booth to have the club’s employee sitting there and waiting for me to do something that is against the rules preemptively.

    We mostly argue about semantics, but in this instance you are trying to excuse some very questionable behaviour by companies by saying something along the lines of “well you better go and live in a forest then”. And I don’t think that’s a good take.

    For example, how many Lemmy instances are fine with you direct linking to piracy torrents?

    Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.

      /sigh

      How many file hosting services let you share pirated data, publicly?

      Before you start in on “it’s not the same” it absolutely is. It’s private data, which is being shared through a link publicly. Just like bookmark collections.

      And once that file has been identified as piracy, it is very often fingerprinted and blacklisted from not only that instance, but all instances past, present and future.

      That’s essentially what is going on here.

      • ddnomad@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Scary illigal content here

        I guess we test and see whether I get banned.

        Also, it’s not the same. A link to a website is not “pirated content”. A link to a website in a “collection” not shared with anybody is not publicly available pirated content.

        Why would Google preemptively ban a set of characters that does not constitute a slur and is perfectly legal to exist?