Verstörndlich.

Sandwich

I'm only aware of care for specific bodily functions or behavior, none that is actually tied to sex.

Alsa das geht echt zu weit.

Och, der ein oder andere Telepolis-Autor…

Der Screenshot spricht doch gerade dafür, dass es ein rechtsextremes Symbol ist.

Tried and failed.

Oh, I know, I know, that’s “trying to feign disinterest”, right?

Ah, so you’re scared now? 👻

No, I’m “scared”, forgot? WooooOOOOOoooooh

Zu einer FFF-Aktion gab es gar eine Gegendemo mit laufendem Dieselgenerator und Bratwurstgrillen.

Den Satz verstehe ich irgendwie nicht wirklich. Also klar ist das dumm, aber “gar”? Wenn es vorher um Morddrohungen oder zumindest Doxxing ging?

Du hast Recht, dass die rechte Grafik relative Zahlen sind. Aber die Person, die den Tweet geschrieben hat, hat das offenbar nicht gemerkt.

Letztes Jahr war es eine Testnachricht

Möglich, dass das regional unterschiedlich oder vom Anbieter abhängig ist, aber bei mir war es letztens Jahr auch ein richtiger Alert. Ich habe und hatte Testwarnungen auch deaktiviert.

112 anrufen geht […], wenn du keine SIM Karte in ein Gerät gesteckt hast,

In Deutschland nicht, weil das wegen häufigem Missbrauchs deaktiviert wurde. Es muss eine SIM-Karte im Gerät sein, SIM-Lock muss aber afaik nicht entsperrt sein.

glances at article

So? I never said I agreed with Gibson on this. I just stated legal considerations and my opinion on the matter. While it seems from your reply in the other thread that you’re having a hard time with this, people other than you a capable of having original thoughts.

Don’t care.

Yeah, it’s become very clear you don’t care whether your replies actual have bearing on what you’re replying to. Instead you keep making up stuff I didn’t say and accuse me of things you continue to do yourself. It seems a lot like you prefer to live in your fantasy world where you’re the strong free-thinking alpha male who has figured the world out, while I’m a “delicate cupcake”, “whiny loser”, “hyperventilat[ing]”, part of the “finger-wagging morality police” who has no clue about politics (nevermind I never talked about the political implications of this at all).

In other words, you continue to not make any actual points, and this is getting boring.

Also, a portion of that $200 billion likely directly or indirectly is US debt.

Yes, which is why arguing morality is literally the weakest argument you can put forward.

And yet you do it, too, because moral considerations are important. And I disagree about moral arguments being weak, btw. You can make strong moral arguments; and there is an entire branch of philosophy about it.

doesn’t make it an “invasion of privacy”.

Considering you were so vivid about me alledgly misquoting ealier, it is kind of remarkable that I did not say that.

But even if I did, ‘it’s not an invasion of privacy’ is not a counter to ‘it’s not right, even if foreseeable’ (paraphrasing here).

Clutch your pearls elsewhere.

You mean “comment on a discussion forum”? Because I certainly don’t see me being emotional here.

Oh my god! How dare someone comment on a discussion forum!!

Nah, it’s more about the capslock, bold font and insults.

You’ll note that I never said anything was right or wrong, in any of my comments.

I mean, you said in your previous comment in this chain that you “guess” it’s morally wrong. And beyond me quoting that I have not claimed you made a moral judgement on this situation.

But alas, I think that it is morally wrong whether or not it was foreseeable, and I do so regardless of what your moral judgement of the situation is (if any). Which, again, seems to really matter to you.

Some would say that livestreaming sex for strangers is immoral, and I’d also tell them to go fuck themselves.

Another thing we agree on. But you do realize that you telling them to go fuck themselves is based on a moral judgement as well?

And again, “[that’s] how the internet works” does not make it right.

You replied to a comment that said the reuploads are copyright infringement, calling it “Wrong”, citing the TOS.

And in one of your other comments quoting the TOS, you explicitly say that they state the streams are in public domain (a copyright term), when the TOS actually say they are public information.