Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]
Rules
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
why are people still gobsmacked that laws don't apply to the owner class, only the peasant class
it's been this way for thousands of years
everyone in this particular com knows the solution so i don't have to break the rules and spell it out, but it's the only solution
No one is gobsmacked. the point is to continuously point it out.
Nobody here anyway. I know plenty of people who would never believe it and call you paranoid for saying something like that. Very important to keep pointing it out.
Just so you know, you don't have to be surprised by an event to post about it. But not posting about it doesn't keep it in peoples' mind, so that's why these get posted. Plus, there's always going to be a couple of the lucky 10k that see this for the first time and finally wake up to that fact.
point taken
This changed a lot of people's perception of MIT, and not for the better.
Did that have any noticeable effect on the policies or behavior of MIT?
MIT didn't seem to think it did anything wrong and considered the school to be a neutral participant. I've seen nothing since that would indicate they accept any blame.
I had a bad feeling when tech was turning out more like Zuckerberg and less like the Swartz. I didn't think they'd go full dystopia.
Aaron should have thought to start a trillion dollar multinational first -- then those laws that persecuted him would have just been a formality he could buy his way out of.
The article seems to focus on the seeding part, i.e. distribution, but not the downloading part. Isn't downloading part illegal too? Or did they buy all those books?
Historically, the legal system is much more concerned with the distribution, not the downloading.
Different crimes. Swartz was charged with breaking into the MIT network and destroying it, because he connected to their guest Wi-Fi and used (way) too much bandwidth. From what I heard, both the copyright holder and prosecutor only wanted to give him a slap on the wrist and firm talking to. It was MIT network support/campus police that insisted on accusing him of every crime possible.
If you want a better case to compare it to, cite the cases brought by Metallica saying that their album did not sell 10 billion copies because a single mother listened to it without paying.
Aaron Swartz was charged with a multitude of criminal counts well beyond breaking MITs network. Wikipedia article has more details and the references to back it up.
MIT didn't even want more than a slap on the wrist. He was literally one of their "golden boys." The FBI agents wanted to make an example, and pad their careers.