Admin is using a 3rd party JavaScript file from https://plausible.io/ that's used for analytics, tracking and selling your data. Check the page source code to confirm for yourself.
tbh i dont care
What is it tracking exactly?
enjoy selling my blank tor browser data i guess
I'd rather he sell my data than subject me to ads or beg for money. Believe it or not, even free websites cost money to remain operational.
Why exactly are people afraid of companies selling data again? Are they super-ashamed of what they fap to? Are they just luddites who don't understand technology? Are they all legitimate terrorists plotting to overthrow the government?
The real answer is pretty simple: the YouTube said companies selling data is bad, and most people can't think for themselves
>>13064
when ZOG laces your water supply with poison because they found analytics purporting that you were a NEET based on your posting history on your site i hope you die painfully,
>>13082
you still haven’t told us what the fuck is being tracked? it says on the website that it doesn’t collect personalized information.
>>13091
not talking about this specific case retard, if i saw a problem with this tracking i'd leave the site,
>>13097
how is it normal fag behavior to care about privacy? most people use gmail and don’t give a fuck.
>>13098
it isn't normalfag behaviour to care about privacy, but you clearly don't give a shit: evidenced by >>13064
>>13102
Why do you care about privacy again? You realize Tor was created by the Navy and is now used by the CIA for the purposes of harvesting hacker data, right? https://www.wired.com/story/cia-sets-up-shop-on-tor/
Caring about privacy is boomer shit. Everyone under 30 happily uploads pics of our genitals to every social media site. Actually, even most boomers didn't give a shit about the Snowden Revelations. Privacy is dead. At this point, it makes more sense to go full anti privacy. No secrets, not even for senators and feds. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear right? Wouldn't it be cool if the Panama Papers didn't require human sacrifice to come to light?
>>13105
>yeah TOR was built by the CIA to harvest hacker data
>silk road owner took 2 years to arrest
>needed to crossreference multiple forum identities to find him out
>operations made to sniff out tor drug markets barely took down a few and left major ones still standing
>most of these were for retard mistakes
>needed to trace bitcoin transfers (not part of TOR) to find most markets
wow, truly privacy on the internet is OVER,
btw the article he linked doesn't say shit about TOR being used to harvest data. this is how they get you, by making posts intended to spread pessimism towards internet privacy, so people don't try at all, even though they can escape the botnet if they try. fuck outta here with your bullshit, fed boy,
>>13107
let me see, TOR has had people not taken down for:
>producing and selling CP
>making snuff porn
>laundering money
>funding far right fronts
>actually being far right terrorist groups
>hacking etc.
if, let's say, the CIA did have a 0 day, why did they need informants to take down lulzsec? why did they need an informant to take down Pedoboard? why haven't they found the HIllary hacker (literally led to Trump winning and light disruption)? why haven't they taken down ANY alt-right forum (if you say feds are in the alt-right forums, you're fucking retarded btw; we've seen how many shooters are created by them)? there is no good evidence to suggest the CIA has access to zero-days on TOR (otherwise they wouldn't be trying to use poisoned nodes) and it's retarded to think so,
>>13064
>nothing to hide
If datamining wasn't bad you wouldn't be pretending not to do it. Why else would you be afraid of people knowing you sell their data? Are you ashamed of your own business model?
>>13110
If the admin really was ashamed (or cared what you retards thought at all) don't you think he would have deleted this thread by now? Use your brai- uh, sorry, that was ableist.
>>13109
The CIA has no reason to shut down your alt-right circle jerk hugboxes. If anything, it keeps you idiots pacified. But go on, keep playing armchair revolutionary in between your interracial porn binges
>>13113
haha, typical americuck, making a point i explicitly took down and then Mutt's Lawing himself
>>13111
the very fact that he doesn't explicitly talk about it in his FAQ is proof enough he doesn't want people to know.
>but then why didn't he take the thread down?
streisand law. he keeps the talk to this one thread and hopes too many people don't leave bcuz of it.
I love our glorious admin and this thread makes me sad. Leave admin-kun alone!
>>13115
Or most people aren't complete autists like you are who cry about privacy but still connect any device to the internet and probably also has a smartphone they carry around with them.
>>13115
There is 1 question in the FAQ because the admin doesn't give a fuck. Trying to use that as evidence of malice proves nothing but how dumb you are
>>13103
>Privacy is dead. At this point, it makes more sense to go full anti privacy. No secrets, not even for senators and feds. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear right? Wouldn't it be cool if the Panama Papers didn't require human sacrifice to come to light?
never thought about it like that. we're not getting privacy back, that genie left the bottle the second you connected your smartphone to the internet. so it's really a question of whether or not you think the government/megacorps should be keeping secrets from its people
information wants to be free anyway. that would be far easier with more government transparency and yes, more transparency about your search history
my data is like, fucking 25 cents at most, that shit's worthless
>>13124
but why tho?
what is your reason for crying when a website that you access for free sells your data? I know, I know, the man on the youtubes said it was bad, but WHY is it bad?
>>13128
Just don't datamine your -already vulnerable and down on their luck- users by using some shady 3rd party analytics script.
>>13131
why not? would you rather the admin make us pay him $5/month to access this site? because those are your options
>>13131
how does it hurt you to be datamined? even assuming you are the most specialest little boy in the world, how exactly does it hurt you to be datamined? are you just greedy and you want the $0.25 or so that your data is worth? sorry kiddo. you may not realize this because you're retarded, but servers cost money to run. not that much money, which is why selling our data in aggregate is just barely enough cover operations
>>13128
It's a low effort third party plugin, even uMatrix blocks it. That is, unless there's some extra datamining tool in the server.
>>13130
There's nothing inherently wrong with analytics or selling information.
However hiding the fact that you're doing it, pretending it's good for the user, or even just lying about what you collect would get you locked in jail in a sane country.
There's a reason why whenever datamining and selling information happens it invariably involves one or all of those factors. "We collect data to improve your experience". Sites that block non-US IPs because then they would be required to disclose the datamining. "We only collect anonymized data", which always turns out to have enough data to not be anonymous anymore.
>>13132
Nice false dichotomy.
Sites can be run on donations, ads, or even just straight from the owner's pocket. Making your users pay or selling their information are just two ways to go about it, and the two worst ways.
>>13137
If the admin doesn't want to waste his own money then why is he using plausible which is paid software that costs, at minimum, 9 dollars per month and can cost more depending on site views?
He doesn't have to use paid software, he doesn't have to use paid software that straight up lies in their own site, and he doesn't have to keep the fact that he's using it hidden when that could get him in legal trouble which is going to cost way more than the measly amount he's getting from a bunch of retarded dweebs.
>Why is it bad for a website to sell your data?
The fact that no one has (or can) defend their REEEEEing speaks volumes. I ask again: why is it bad for a website to sell your data? I don't care about what the law says. Why is it morally or ethically wrong? What exactly is the cost to you?
Even if the admin was going out of his way to hide the fact that he does this (he's not), I still wouldn't be harmed in anyway. In fact, if he STOPPED doing this I would be harmed. Fuck paying money to use an imageboard and fuck being eyeraped by ads. I don't expect him to pay for this site out of pocket indefinitely. Selling data is far and away the best option. The reason why everyone (including you) agree to the terms and conditions of every website and app you use is precisely because you don't lose anything by having your data sold.
The only situation where this would actually be a big deal is financial websites, not shitposting websites. Maybe that's what is confusing all these script kiddies. lmao imagine thinking your well-being is at risk because of some memes you posted
>>13139
If you truly believe that random people getting undisclosed access to random information about you is truly harmless then dox yourself and post your fetishes. Privacy is dead and you're fine with it, right?
Hey anons,
I don't usually do this, but I guess I'll post officially.
Plausible will be removed in the near future. I set it up sometime last year as an alternative to Google Analytics, just to see more accurate metrics for the site's traffic. I can't speak for what Plausible is doing behind the scenes with data, but I don't make any money using it.
I also don't make any money from neet.moe. It obviously costs something to keep it online, but I love this site.
https://docs.neet.moe/admin_posts.txt
>>13140
Sure brah! I love to talk about my fetishes!
Here is my IPv6 address: 2603:6080:8940:1b:2094:cd03:f1f3:8a48
My main fetish is incest, but I also like NTR and gangbangs. Obviously I mostly consume hentai (and yes also western animated porn i.e rule34), but the most unique thing I like are incest captions.
Now what? Am I supposed to be suffering somehow?
>>13142
wait, so all your whining this whole time has been because the admin... wanted accurate metrics for the site's traffic? because he wanted to quit using Google Analytics? and he wasn't even making money off it?
in that case, please don't post here again, faggot. after all: YoUr DaTa iS bEiNg SoLd wItHoUt yOuR cOnSeNt!!!!11!
>>13144
>I can't speak for what Plausible is doing behind the scenes with data
That's the whole point of this you retard.
>>13139
it's not that we can't, you're just acting like an annoying retard right now so it's not worth responding to you. waste of energy when you throw out phrases like "youtube told you to think like this" like a low iq retard who thinks he knows everything about everyone.
>>13176
Pretty please explain why selling data is bad? Or continue not answering this simple question and keep making yourself look dumber and gayer. The choice is yours 😸
>>13177
this may shock you but most people don't waste their time with demonstrable retards. i could probably give a good argument to why privacy is important, but ofc you would latch onto a single argument i made that isn't particularly important and then make autistic statements that have been refuted in my posts. it's not worth,
Anon loves neet.moe and he loves our beloved arisu-admin. This chan is the most cozy anon ever found. It used to be a /kind/ for hikkis and that made it so unique in the wired.
>claim the jews everything
>it’s actually the indians
antisemites, explain yourselves.
The Plausible script tag is gone, btw
>>13191
Jews are on the board of companies own a majority of shares. They appoint the poo CEOs
>>13078
Based, don't fall for the anonymous tracking meme, the metadata can easily be used to de-anonymize you and with AI it's just getting easier all the time.
>The only safe database is one that is never collected
t. RMS
>>13093
Based. saying you're not concerned about governments and the corporations that run them harvesting your data is bottom of the barrel cope.
>Saying you don't have a right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't have the right to free speech because you have nothing to say
t. Snowden
>>13064
>most people can't think for themselves
That's the problem. Enjoy your google-owned web, normie.
>>13104
>Fucking CIA Niggers!
t. Saint Terry
>>13103
KYS CIA Nigger!
>>13499
>Saying you don't have a right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't have the right to free speech because you have nothing to say
ok, cute little slogan you got there, but why? why do you need privacy? why can no one explain how being de-anonymized is a bad thing? are you just envious of the deep state which is allowed to have privacy? wouldn't it lead to better outcomes if, rather than atomizing our society even more by giving everyone more privacy in their pods, we took away the privacy from the deep state?
I practice what I preach btw. I leave the door unlocked when I shit. I'd be a nudist and talk about my edgy political opinions and kinks openly if it didn't annoy other people so damn much. I actually do have nothing to fear because I actually do have nothing to hide. you can't be blackmailed if you truly don't give a fuck
eliminating privacy would make the world a better place. you shouldn't NEED privacy to express your honest beliefs. consider using darknet to buy drugs. victimless crimes should be legal and you shouldn't have to hide any consensual transaction. it took decades for weed to be relegalized in America precisely because so many people opted to get better at hiding their true beliefs about the broken system, rather than try to fix the broken system. I'm sure this naive obsession with privacy is contributing to the cultural rift happening now
look, if you just want the freedom to look at child porn or plan terrorist attacks, stop being a coward and admit it. because the truth is there is no reason to care about privacy if you're not doing anything you're ashamed of or will get you in trouble. that's why the 99% of the world who doesn't have dark secrets agrees to the terms & conditions of every datamining website without thinking twice
I get that certain kinds of information does need to be private for safety reasons, such as address or credit card number. I already conceded that. but we're not talking about that here. we're talking about a hypothetical website admin selling your post data to advertisers and data processing companies. so long as you're not typing your exact address or financial information directly into the site as cleartext, there is no problem. convince me otherwise
information wants to be free. let it
Privacy is just another word for self-censorship. Why are you privacy nuts so pro-censorship?
>>13499
>Saying you don't have a right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't have the right to free speech because you have nothing to say
I don't think that's a good quote. It makes sense, but the anti-privacy retards are anti-free speech as well.
>>13503
Why do you want privacy if it's so unnecessary?
>>13506
>anti-privacy retards are anti-free speech as well.
False. I'm pretty sure I'm the only anti-privacy genius here, and I'm viciously pro-free-speech. Like I said, privacy is just another word for self-censorship. Why are you pro-privacy retards so pro-censorship?
>Why do you want privacy if it's so unnecessary?
I don't want privacy. Did you even read my post?
>I get that certain kinds of information do need to be private for safety reasons, such as address or credit card number. I already conceded that. but we're not talking about that here. we're talking about a hypothetical website admin selling your post data to advertisers and data analytics companies.
>>13507
>privacy is just another word for self-censorship
Privacy is wearing a mask while you talk.
Self-censorship is when you can't have a mask and are too afraid to talk.
>I don't want privacy
Then why are you trying to hide your personal information? When prompted to give up the sort of information that is being sold you instead gave an IPV6 address, when it doesn't even have the MAC address anymore.
You're either too much of a bitch to post the information that you're defending the datamining of, or you're too computer illiterate to understand the subject.
>>13572
You're conflating privacy with anonymity. Easy mistake for a young bloke like you to make :)
I'm giving you the exact information our lovely admin would have access, my IP address and my fetishes. If you understood how IPv6 worked (or if you weren't retarded in general) you'd at least be able to determine my zip code from that. But fuck it, just to prove my point I'll give you this one for free big guy, 24707. I know you're illiterate so you are forgiven for not realizing this, but in this thread we're talking about the admin theoretically selling our post data, not putting our full billing address, phonenumber, social security number, and credit card number online. Those things it does make sense to keep private. We were never talking about that. You're grasping at straws and refusing to defend your poorly thought out position because on some level, even you realize you have already lost this debate.
Now can we please return this thread to me talking about my fetishes? I definitely like rape porn as well, but good rape porn it's getting harder to find these days. Any recs? rule34video.com is getting better lately tho. I didn't used to like CG porn but over this past year I've been converted. There is this one really good vid when Samus Aran gets raped by a monster. The voice acting is on point. I believe it's called Samus Aran and the Forgotten Planet 3 or something like that.
>>13572
he's a little piss pants contrarian fag and wont do it. just means you can disregard all his bullshit.
>>13580
Funny how the scope instantly went from "why do you need privacy" and "why can no one explain how being de-anonymized is a bad thing?" to this extremely specific situation once your information got involved, so much for your "I practice what I preach btw".
>I'm giving you the exact information our lovely admin would have access, my IP address and my fetishes
And you're conveniently ignoring the fact that anons are explicitly against the SALE of that information. Your bank sells your information. Google sells your information (which includes any site with google captcha, google ads, and more). Half the fucking modern world sells your information. Anyone who purchases it is going to have more then just the "my IP address and my fetishes".
If you're going to make any claim that selling information isn't bad, beyond this very specific situation which was never the entire scope of the discussion, then post your personal information.
>you'd at least be able to determine my zip code
What's an opsec. What's a NAT. What's a proxy. What's a local IP.
>>13582
I know half the world sells my information. And guess what? It hasn't negatively impacted me in any way! Thanks for proving my point for me.
Ahhhh I love winning internet arguments. You're too immature to explicitly concede that you are wrong, but anyone else reading this thread sees what a confused coward you are.
>>13582
to be fair, it's not like wells fargo is selling his bank account information. They might sell the data of the transactions he makes (not unlike his post data) but you're asking him to input his social security number, billing address, and credit card info online.The only people who are selling that are hackers, not the megacorps. he already posted his (alleged) zip code and IP address. Pretending like neet.moe would have access to any more information than that is disingenuous
>>13584
Obviously they aren't going to sell that kind of critical information, that's not what I'm asking of him, but they do tie his identity to the information they sell.
How do you think advertisers track people across devices?
>Pretending like neet.moe would have access to any more information than that is disingenuous
Read, nigger.
>>13584
Thanks for pointing out how retarded the privacyfags are bro!
Ahhhhhhh, ain't nothin' like winnin' an internet argument :)
>>13585
>How do you think advertisers track people across devices?
Yes, you can be deanonymized by metadata. Still hasn't and won't negatively impact me in any way, so long as my financial information, mother's maiden name, email address password, etc are kept private. I'll post this for a 4th time just to rub it in:
>I get that certain kinds of information do need to be private for safety reasons, such as address or credit card number. I already conceded that. but we're not talking about that here. we're talking about a hypothetical website admin selling your post data to advertisers and data analytics companies.
>>13587
why you gotta lie like that bro? are you just trying to make me look better?
https://thepostalcodelookup.com/?address=24707%20afton%20way%20moreno%20valley,+usa
>>13588
Is information that allow you to be identified such as your name or typing patterns included in that "certain kinds"?
>>13506
>I don't think that's a good quote. It makes sense, but the anti-privacy retards are anti-free speech as well.
Based
>>13503
If you don't believe in privacy, then do this. Dox yourself, give us all your full name, address, email, phone number, all other means of contacting you directly birth date, medical history, sexual orientation, complete with a photo of your genitals which includes your face. If you don't do this, I will dismiss you as nothing more than a coward who doesn't stand up for what he believes in or a troll.
>>13591
Typing patterns are already freely available information. You can probably identify a handful of users here already if you come around often enough. But you can't harass someone IRL or empty their bank account by identifying them on an imageboard. So no, I would not include typing patterns in the same class of information that actually should be kept private such as passwords, addresses, and pin numbers.
>>13595
*yawn* cool deflection bro, but the truth is I've long since won this debate and I'm getting bored repeating myself. There simply is no more salt & dopamine for me to extract from this thread.
No one has even attempted to explain WHY companies selling your data is bad. You guys just insist it is over and over, secretly praying the repetition will suffice. The ball's been in your court for a while now
>>13597
>Typing patterns are already freely available information. You can probably identify a handful of users here already if you come around often enough
Typing as in keystroke patterns, the kind which is use to deanonymize people and link their online identities to their real identity. Is that something that should be private, yes or no?
>>13597
It's bad because it monetizes the human experience
Mainly it's used by marketers to buy shit you don't need and poisons you mentally
But you sound like an ancap piece of shit so none of this is meaningful to you most likely
All I think when I see internet arguments like this is that all parties are wasting their time.
>>13632
As a quantum ancap please don't group me up with him. I think voluntarily selling data is fine, but the blatant deceptive practices that surround modern datamining would get the people responsible killed in a good ancap world.
He sounds more like a corporativist faggot, saying that lying is okay because of hidden contracts and "it hasn't harmed me yet".
>>13640
I fluctuate between wanting a full on ancap world and thinking a benevolent dictatorship is the only way to have a good lasting society.
>>13641
I think money is incompatible with an anarchist society since it is intimately intertwined with power and corruption. why I consider ancaps neo-feudalists Though I think the NAP is totally based, if someone tries to invade your personal space and take a crap in your sink, you have every right to beat that fucker up and leave him in a communal dumpster, also If someone tries to stop you from anhero you should have every right to use any amount of lethal force to defend your right to cease to exist. You deny my right to die, I deny your right to live.
>>13597
I knew you were too damn chicken, m8.
Anyway have fun when a coup d'etat installs a despot in your country and the gestapo knock on your door because you looked at something the state doesn't like and they lock you up and throw away the key like the unperson you are. Why don't you go install RedStar OS while you're at it!
>>13634
Time enjoyed is never wasted. Net battles are a competitive hobby like playing baseball. Only less boring and it actually builds practical skills. I totally get why it's not most people's cup of tea tho
>>13653
The problem with the NAP is everything is subjective. What you might consider "raping your child" your child might consider, "smashing cougar pussy".
The truth is ancaps are all college kids (or as immature as college kids) who haven't had to deal with the messy real world yet. Night City is a cool setting for a video game, but actually living there would suck. You gotta have formal laws. I'm not defending our current legal system at all. I'm trying to build a new, more programmatic way to craft constitutions on the blockchain right now, but it's a slow process when I can't get anyone else to volunteer.
>>13632
>It's bad because it monetizes the human experience
Elaborate. Actually, on second thought, you shut up, I'll do it for you. All jobs monetize the human experience. I hate work as much as the next guy, but selling your data is orders of magnitude less bad than working, because you don't have to do anything other than use free software as you normally would.
>Mainly it's used by marketers to buy shit you don't need and poisons you mentally
I'll concede that the purpose of advertising is to poison you mentally, but if you're not using an adblocker in this day and age, that's a you-problem. Btw, when net companies make money by selling data, they don't need to expose you to ads as much or shill shitty products. Really makes ya think...
>You sound like an ancap
No, I am not. And also I hate them.
>>13653
Correct, ancaps ARE neofeudalists, which is why I hate them.
>>13655
>the gestapo knock on your door because you looked at something the state doesn't like and they lock you up and throw away the key
>looked at something the state doesn't like
Such as child porn? Hah, I knew it! Your unironic defense for privacy is nothing more than "but muh cp!"
I'm not a pedophile like you, but I actually don't hate you for being one. *I want to live in a world where you don't have to censor yourself and live in the shadows to avoid being thrown in prison for living your truth and speaking your honest beliefs.*
I want to live in a world where no one keeps secrets. Not you, but especially not the politicians, megacorps, and deep state. Because the truth is, WE already don't have privacy, and THEY do. I reiterate, I'm not talking about bank account details like you keep demanding I post (thinking it's some sort of "own" when I don't lol). I'm talking about the information you generate as you cruise through the Wired. The metadata, the search history, the page history, the transaction history, etc. I want to live in a world where you specifically can be an out and proud lolicon. But more importantly, I want to live in a world where we know exactly how the military budget is being wasted. No gods, no masters, no secrets.
I'll concede we do not currently live in a world like that. But now, if you're being reasonable, you must concede we will never get there unless we go down the radical antiprivacy future path.
>>13666
>WE already don't have privacy, and THEY do
The elites of our society get embarrassing shit leaked all the time, but even if what you say is true, simping for Meta and Google isn’t going to improve anything. All it will do is increase inequality.
>>13673
>The elites of our society get embarrassing shit leaked all the time
Correct, but it usually requires some sort of human sacrifice like with the Panama Papers. Wouldn't it be better if elites stopped hiding everything they're doing and we didn't need to throw journalists into the meat grinder to uncover the truth? Yes, yes it would be.
>simping for Meta and Google isn’t going to improve anything
That's what you're doing. You're a little beta hobbit who wants them to keep having their dirty little secrets.
On the other hand, I want all their code open source as well as all the data they gathered on us to be freed. This includes all the data they gather on themselves.
No more secret experiments: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/02/facebook-sorry-secret-psychological-experiment-users
No more secret ballots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_voting
No more black budgets: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/black-budget/
You want all that. Why? Just so no one knows you're a pedo? Guess what retard: it is morally WRONG for you to have to live in fear because of your innate sexual preferences. You should be out and proud just like all the faggots and trannies. It breaks my heart that so many people still have to live in fear, because they have so much to hide.
>>13601
>conveniently ignores the post
I'll take that as a yes.
You are against datamining of any personal information that is or can be linked to your identity.
You're "not against" datamining because you trust the corporations when they lie to your face and tell you the information is anonymized.
>>13677
Actually, I ignored it to save you the embarrassment.
No, I do not care if a corporation knows my typing style and ties it to my real world identity. In fact, one of my goals in life is to become a renowned writer. I want *everyone in the world* to be able to recognize a piece written by me. Please create a medium account and click on my articles! I'm literally begging you to "datamine" my blog: https://transrightsactivist.medium.com/
And before you ask, no, I do not care if my ISP knows my billing address. No, I do not care if my bank knows my transaction history. Now please pipe down or bring better arguments to the table.
>>13677
Yes, this thread inspired me to make my next article about Radical Antiprivacy. Here's a sneak preview. Hey, it's free data for you to mine and somehow make my life worse, right? You did this to yourself:
I can't help but scoff at antimaskers. Oh, your feelings get hurt when you're turned away from Walmart? Try going into any business without wearing a shirt and shoes. Try being arrested for the heinous crime of sitting on your own front lawn in the only clothes God saw fit to give you. My people have been discriminated against by the cult of clothes since before I was born. My people, of course, is referring to nudists.
Hey, if you want to wear clothes or a mask everywhere, that's totally your prerogative. I will concede wearing a mask can reduce the transmission of certain diseases and wearing clothes can reduce the likelihood of mosquito bites. But restricting my freedom for the hypothetical safety of others is authoritarian and more importantly, wrong.
If you want to die on that hill, not wearing a mask during a pandemic is orders of magnitude more damaging to other people than not wearing other while existing. Oh, you say you are worried about the innocent minds of children being scarred by the nudity of strangers? The fact that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are not nudists have confirmed that is a lie. My rights shouldn't end where your feelings begin and they also shouldn't end where your child's feelings begin. Not only has the average 13 year old with an internet connection already seen more nudity than an average adult from the pre-internet era, kids living in warmer climates have always had to be forcibly indoctrinated into the cult of clothes to begin with.
Of course, no one *really* cares about children, at least not the people making laws. "Think of the children!" has been used to push authoritarian laws from pro-censorship to anti-drug laws. The true motivation for anti-nudity laws are people with subpar sex organs not wanting to endure humiliation and perverts who fear they won't be able to control their primal impulse to rape.
Consider this: if nudity was completely legal and normal, what would you think of the freaks who insisted on covering up? If you're being honest, you'd probably regard them much like the Western world already regards Taliban women wearing burkas. You'd implicitly understand that this mandatory apparel (which people are legally punished for not wearing in public) is being imposed on the women by perverts who blame their theoretical rape victims for being too sexy, or it's about the shame the women themselves feel about their own bodies.
Despite that, a fairly consistent pattern over the past several centuries is society has grown more permissive of nudity. In most of the places worth visiting, full-on topless women are legally allowed to exist. Everyone likes to look at boobs though. Even most pre-pubescent children are intimately familiar with their mom’s titties. This comes with a cost; however it’s not what pearl-clutching puritans think it is. Turns out men don’t become homicidal rapists when they see an ankle. Kids clearly don’t become hypersexual when they are bombarded with virtual and real images of scantily clad people. No, the main cost to acceptable nudity are muffintops, manboobs, and cellulite. No wonder less clothes don’t lead to more sex…
Nudism is healthy though. Towards the end of high school streaking became popular and I initially tried nudism purely due to peer pressure. I soon discovered I lacked a neurotypical shame response so I leveraged my superpower of being shameless for a while. In college I was a militant nudist. This time it was less about peer pressure and more about me seeing how far I could go with being naked. People would come over to my apartment to hang out and, weather permitting, I’d hang out in my birthday suit.
Over time I noticed a few more things. Other people who were capable of having a conversation with me while I was naked and they weren’t tended to form a stronger bond with me. Not in a sexual way. When nude I’m my true authentic self. Nothing to hide. Nothing up my sleeve. Hanging out naked with others speedruns building friendships. Yes, occasionally people got the wrong idea and it resulted in sex, but again it was more speedrunning the natural progression.
When you’re naked all the time and you have some mirrors or other people looking at you, any flaw is immediately apparent. Being a nudist spurred me to get in better shape because I could no longer hide my flabby belly with a shirt. I’d know which muscles to target in the gym because I was constantly looking at them. I automatically got better at grooming myself too. I was bideting long before it was cool so there was never a risk or incident of skid marks appearing on my furniture. One time, a friend pointed out a growth on my back that I would never have noticed and needed to get removed. To top it all off it saved me a chunk of change on air conditioning. Nudism, eliminating my own privacy at a fundamental level, is a net positive to my life, and it seems society is trending towards a world where practicing nudism is no longer criminalized.
Like it or not, the same thing is happening with internet data. Your search history, location history, chat history, all of it is currently being stored, processed, and/or sold. The line big tech megacorps feed us is “they’re just collecting data for marketing purposes” or to “identify and arrest terrorists” but you have to be a real boomer to believe that. I mean, they’re doing that stuff too, but the main use of your data is control. This data in aggregate enables the development of personally targeted propaganda to make you take certain actions. This shouldn’t sound farfetched at all because they already admit to using your data for targeted advertisements. What are ads other than propaganda for a specific product? Even worse, if you piss off the wrong people, spin doctors can construct an unflattering narrative from your search history to sway public opinion. And they rarely have to go that far. All someone really needs to cancel you is a single sufficiently incriminating tweet or text message and a bit of bad luck.
Many websites now require you to upload a picture of your photoID. In an era of ever-dwindling online privacy.
____________________________
That's all I got so far, but I plan on cleaning up some posts I made in this very thread and and get more into the actual topic.
>>13677
Come on faggot, hurry up and datamine me! I'm literally exposing my blog to you. You can't get more insight into my identity than this blog. When is this negative outcome gonna occur? Still waiting on an answer to that btw. All you privacyfags have offered so far is:
1) calling me a hypocrite over and over if I don't immediately post my billing address, credit card info, and pin number (ad hominems are really the best ya got huh...)
2) selling data monetizes the human experience (as if everything else in the world doesn't lmao)
3) there isn't a 3
You know, with how much I've been humiliating you guys, I kinda understand why you need privacy so bad. You don't live in fear, you live in shame. I think it would be better if you instead of living in shame, you just improved your behavior/ideas.
>>13678
If you truly don't care about having your real identity tied to your online identity then post your personal information.
Until you practice what you preach you're no more than a corporate apologist.
>>13682
What's the title of this thread again? Oh that's right, "the admin is datamining you."
Even though it turned out the admin wasn't actually doing this, I said it's not a big deal for him to do so, because no information anyone posts here poses a security risk. No one here is posting their credit card number. No one here is posting their billing address. No one here is posting their full legal name. Identities can still be tracked, but it'd have to be tied to an arbitrary identification number. Which is totally fine.
You said the admin datamining us in this way is a big deal, because. Just because. You have not offered anything more than impotent ad hominem attacks.
You retards lured me back in with your delicious salt, but I got shit to do this weekend. Keep crying loud enough, and I might just come back though! I hope you learned something from thoroughly losing this internet debate.
>>13683
>literally nothing wrong with having your online persona tied to your real life identity
>random people having unrestricted access to every information I put online tied to my phone number and name isn't harmful
>but I refuse to post my name online and give random people access to my information
>Identities can still be tracked, but it'd have to be tied to an arbitrary identification number.
It can be deanynomized. I explicitly asked you if you were fine with data that can be deanonymized and you replied with " I do not care if a corporation knows my typing style and ties it to my real world identity".
Go on then, post your real world identity. Phone number and full legal name are informations corporations have access to.
>You said the admin datamining us in this way is a big deal
I didn't. I'm just replying to your posts defending corporate datamining.
Are you against datamining that can be tied to your real life identity?
If no then prove you're fine with it and post your real life identity (not credit card information).
>>13663
Based, anarchy simply means there is no state, but rules are essential for the function of any commune, like don't break into someone's house and shit in their sink and don't stop people from anhero. I just believe that self defense should be a fundamental human right and the state doesn't have the resources to defend everyone in their place.also the justice system is fucked up and easily rigged the NAP is the equivalent of MAD in thermonuclear warfare on a personal level
>>13666
checked, lucifer.
>Such as child porn?
no, more like political dissident websites, George Orwell's Animal Farm, The Satanic Verses, Harry Potter, Wikipedia's articles on the Soviet Union and the third reich. You can get fucked up really badly if you try to break free of Mr. Kim's national intranet he has set up to monitor you.
>I'm not a pedophile like you, but I actually don't hate you for being one.
Thank you, I don't hate you either for being a retard who jumps to false conclusions.
Or are you just an edgy teenager who is sperging out because anon asked for a dick pic? If so, get off this board, son, it's not for you!
>Not you, but especially not the politicians, megacorps, and deep state.
That I agree with, if you are in the public sphere people have a right to know what's going on, state/trade secrets should be illegal, but personal secrets should be a fundamental human right.
>No gods, no masters, no secrets.
No gods, no masters, no STATE.
>>13697
>state/trade secrets should be illegal
I can think of one **and only one** instance where state secrets were arguably justified.
Back in the cold war the US had missiles near the soviet union that weren't being used. The US tried to decommission them but decided it wasn't worth the cost and just left them there.
Then the cuban missile crisis happened and they made a deal with the soviets. They would remove the cuban missiles and the US would remove the missiles near the soviet union.
The president at the time denied the deal ever happened.
If he had told the people what happened the american population would go against him, and if he admitted the missiles near the soviet union weren't that important the soviets would ask for more in exchange for the cuban missiles. Either way it could risk turning the cold war hot.
>>13679
I don't think nudism should be a crime, just don't deny me the right to wear my quakecon shirt and cargo pants.
You can have your birthday suit as long as I can have my nerdy suit.
Also some myopic/hyperopic people prefer glasses over contacts
>>13698
>I can think of one **and only one** instance where state secrets were arguably justified.
Yeah, bro but are those states justified?
If there were no USA/USSR or any state at all there would be no wars or missile crisis to start with.
it's like saying the Second World War was only justified to fix the mess caused by the first one which was itself unjustified. hence both could have and should have been prevented.
>>13701
Ideally or in practice?
Because I agree that ideally there would be no big states, and possibly no states at all.
In practice you're forced to join the least worse otherwise some other state will force itself upon you. The answer is more blurry in this case.
>>13703
That's probably why the Leninist model was so popular.
>The revolution must be protected from reactionary forces that seek to undermine it.
Perhaps if Trotsky lead the vanguard and crushed the capitalist states in Europe before setting his eyes to America we might have had the chance to see world communism come to fruition.
>Гребаная Перестройка!
>>13700
Does anyone actually begrudge you for dressing like a 90s nerd? In fact, I'm pretty sure that's trendy now.
