consent to be deceived?

Christopher Waid chris at
Mon Sep 30 08:46:56 BST 2019

On 2019-09-30 02:03 AM, Danny Spitzberg wrote:
> Re. “the internet fundamental disagrees with me” — hey, if
> you’re talking to the internet, can you please ask it to post the
> recording of Bradley Kuhn’s LibrePlanet talk? Information wants to
> be free, right?
> But seriously, as long as I’m getting double emails about #RiseUp!!1
> and so on, I’m on a new list. Re-read the excerpt from the
> subscription confirmation e-mail (“ignore this and nothing will
> happen”) and you’ll see misinformation in the name of what I’ll
> generously call vigilante justice.
> I will say it’s that too bad that FSF is in tumult and changed
> it’s terms to prevent the occasional murder/execution conspiracy
> claim. I guess it’s also entertaining to see so much righteous
> indignation and the occasional assassination speculation.
> But in practical terms..., I’m glad to see Daniel’s conduct and
> this list referred to as spam.

Calling it spam is a bit of a stretch. It's pretty obvious most of the 
people on it *WANT* to be on the list. There were more people who 
clearly indicated that than not. If it were actual spam you wouldn't be 
able to unsubscribe and there wouldn't be a connection to actions you'd 
taken. At those whom are claiming it is spam.

> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 10:36 PM Christopher Waid
> <chris at> wrote:
>> On 2019-09-30 01:06 AM, Florian Snow wrote:
>>> On September 30, 2019 12:06:37 AM GMT+02:00, Christopher Waid
>>> <chris at> wrote:
>>>> This is like saying because I setup a new server
>>> That is not what happened.
>>>> In any event none of this theoretical chatter
>>>> matters much. You are on
>>>> the internet and the internet fundamentally
>>>> disagrees with you. It's
>>>> not the law that matters because the law
>>>> differs from place to place and we
>>>> are all in different places. It's fundamentally
>>>> how the internet works
>>>> that matters and the fact you are on two lists
>>>> now is evidence of that fact.
>>> According to this, everything that factually happens, is OK.
>> Of course not. What I was saying was relative to the internet.
>>> Awesome!
>>> So if someone hires a hitman online, only the hitman can be
>> legally
>>> charged.
>> If a hitman commits murder than yes- the hitman should be charged.
>>> Spam,
>> I have no issue with spam. You can't stop it and you agreed to it by
>> utilizing the very nature of the technology. Anything you do via law
>> is
>> through the use of violence and that is morally wrong. Spam isn't
>> going
>> to kill you.
>>> DDoS attacks,
>> Same thing. I'd not encourage it. Nor would I encourage spam.
>> However it
>> is part of what you agree to when getting online.
>>> copying data without consent,
>> I'm not even sure this makes any sense. What is it even mean? A copy
>> certainly isn't theft. No.
>>> all OK because they factually happen.
>> Nope. You left out the whole internet part.
>>> If only the real world was like this: We could punch or stab each
>>> other and it would be OK because it happened. Oh, wait, perhaps we
>>> introduced laws to avoid that situation, and perhaps that is also
>> why
>>> we we live by rules in society that do not depend on laws.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discussion mailing list
>>> Discussion at
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discussion mailing list
>> Discussion at
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at

More information about the Discussion mailing list