comfy

Horseshoe theory is not a useful method of political analysis, nor is the left-right spectrum it is founded on.

This vid explains in more detail

You have hurt the feelings of 448 million Europeans.

Thanks for the detailed reply :)

I agree with all your points, it is misleading and potentially harmful to use a strong term like spyware to refer to all of those things, without further context. I guess I'm still used to a couple of tech circles where people would jokingly throw 'spyware' around to describe anything and everything, so I didn't realize how misleading it really is. Especially when it's applied to things like automatic updates, which only the most extreme security models consider more of a risk than a security feature.

That website has a very strict, unusual interpretation of 'spyware'. Even if all the telemetry and unprompted connections made by Mozilla Firefox are in good faith and legitimate features, that website still labels it 'spyware', as it is revealing unnecessary information without your consent.

The same website gives Tor Browser a 'Not Spyware' rating, as it (necessarily!) removed the default features of Firefox that concerned them.

Side note - I think you may have accidentally marked your account as a 'bot account' in the settings.

That website is [...] full of verifiably false information

Could you please provide and example or two? I wish to verify it, since I didn't notice any last time I checked the site.

they act as if any and all [unprompted] connections a browser makes are automatically bad and “spying”.

They're very clear that this is their approach (bold text on the home page). Even if you disagree with their definition, that doesn't make the site bad. And there are many valid situations where a threat model should be this strict, consider anti-government activists in any country.

They even claim that Tor Browser is a “spyware”.

It says "Not Spyware". https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/tor

Honestly, trying to find a definitive 'in the right' of any large-scale conflict is tough, almost moot. Especially since moral values like 'right' and 'wrong' are subjective, and that small groups of powerful people may not represent a whole. Complex reality doesn't fall neatly into these ideals of right and wrong.

It's very narrow-scope to frame this conflict as just about one attack at a music concert, and furthermore to think that a decades-long invasion, colonization and blockade shouldn't be compared to other acts of colonialism.

Also, please read the community rules before posting, there are only two of them.

Firefox gets a high rating on default configuration.

The next line explains that with custom configuration, it becomes Not Spyware.

In reality, it would be more like a series of lines on different topics weighted differently by an individuals priorities so no singular generic representation will ever be truly good enough.

In reality, there are no lines. And that's exactly why I say, it's not a step forward to add another vague idealist axis on top of a vague undefined idealist axis. Politics is not geometrical, there isn't a concept of ordered values. The entire method of thinking is wrong, and that video helps explain what a more appropriate alternative model based on human history is like.

Adding an axis is just walking forward down a wrong path; a move in the wrong direction by suggesting the issue is about how much fidelity we have.

Maybe we will make groundbreaking leaps in cosmetic surgery. Or have Jackass-style elderly disguises become popular.

'Authoritarianism' is a bullshit vague idealist concept that can't be linearized into 'more than', 'less than', 'most' or 'least', and make any sense.

The USA throw people in prison for decades and enslave them for being a victim of the drug trade. They have one of the largest proportions of imprisoned population in the world.

They also allow socialists to own guns and propagandize, to a larger degree than most countries.

Liberalism is complex, contradictory and idealist, so terms like 'authoritarianism' are basically meaningless to apply to the real world.

There's a big difference between banning addictive industries and oppression. There's a big difference between 'a government not letting people do something' and 'oppression'. There might be a case that this way of eliminating tobacco usage, by just making an addictive substance illegal, can be cruel if there isn't adequate social support alongside it, but banning smoking by itself isn't cruel, malicious or arbitrary.

I think there are some reasonable arguments for not criminalizing tobacco, and that this is a silly ineffective way to approach a chemically-and-socially addictive issue, but it is harmful to health for the user and others, society and therefore economics. And this can't be rationalized away by 'it's someone's own free will' when it's chemically-addictive, socially-ingrained and still being marketed to vulnerable teens. And, keep in mind, the medical costs of this are socialised, so it's not like the person smoking pays for all the consequences. It's a systematic, non-trivial problem that significantly affects people who do not choose to partake.

With all that said, fuck the 'war on drugs' style of criminalization. It just creates an illegal market and fills prisons, and in some countries with a similar system to the US, creates a legalized form of mass slave labour.