- Flip phones are celebrated in some threads because people don't want smart phones (extreme minority in real life)

- Disabling JS and pushing sites to go back to just raw HTML CSS (with some even not understanding why we need JS, extreme minority irl. IRL site owners care about attracting customers and the things they want to do can't be done with raw HTML CSS much of the time)

- Kagi taking off. IRL most people still do and will continue to Google

- People acting like if ads were disabled forever the population would totally pay for things they like (IRL people don't, there's a reason piracy is big. People want the things they want for the cheapest cost possible)

HN is a very specific type of tech-centric bubble

SEC has been trying to label pretty much every crypto a security, and XRP is probably the closest thing to one, so if they couldn’t get this…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Civil_...

It's the same as the US's treatment of African Americans for decades; legally they have the same rights but the reality of how they get treated by their government is much different. Just pointing out "Aha! They are equal under law!" is misleading and tries to shut the issue down

US presidents always visit Israel and cater to it if they want to be elected, it has 0 to do with Judaism or the fact that Israel is founded on Jewish principles.

Also issues like where you are not allowed to refuse to work with Israel if you are an arms manufacturer in the US (but you can refuse to work with the US military). I know that part of that is due to Israel being part of the FMS list but they are also the largest recipient on it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaround_(story)

Ad hominem

I mean it's literally not, I state the same thing but shortened further up.

>So you don't get to accuse me of a logical fallacy when you're referring to an argument that you haven't articulated yet.

Ok first off, no one is "accusing" anyone of anything, I'm pointing out a literal fallacy you made. If you're wearing a blue shirt and I point out you're wearing a blue shirt, I'm not accusing you of wearing a blue shirt. And I've articulated my argument many times, including in it's literal formal argument form.

>I'm not sure if you have specific legal experience in this area but all of these claims are questionable to me; my understanding is that most of these things have little if any legal precedent and are a grey area at best. I'd be interested to see sources for these claims, since as I said, I don't know too much about this.

Yeah I'm not going to go trolling through the internet to find examples of this (if there are any, I would wager there aren't since I don't think people would be dumb enough to perform the situation you tried to use as an example) for someone who clearly is just getting angry and not even arguing in good faith.

You're going on about how I'm accusing you and how my argument isn't the same, and you've said I committed a fallacy (which you never even articulated btw), so I don't think there's any point in furthering this conversation. Seems like a waste of time.

I would love to see a source of a large company like CNN knowingly serving malware in the guise of ads. I've never heard of that but I'm all ears; I feel like it would be big news if CNN knowingly put a crypto miner on your device.

> How should I legally/ethically block this malware without using a broad ad blocker?

I don't know but also now you're committing a fallacy known as "Irrelevant conclusion". Yes, there's a genuine question on how you can block malware without depriving website owners of their ad revenue, however it's irrelevant to the original argument of whether blocking ads is stealing (which we've somehow come to from a piracy argument but whatever). The argument becomes "Is blocking ads stealing when some of them give me malware", but that's separate from "Is blocking ads stealing".

Alternatively you might be trying to argue "but I block ads because some of them give me malware" which can be an appeal to pity[2], but I don't think you're trying to go that far.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity

Someone dying of natural causes and someone being murdered both end up with the person dying, that does not mean they're the same thing.

I did no such thing, I was putting the argument into logical form[1]. When you do that you express the original argument in specifically semantic terms. I've been saying the same thing since the beginning, piracy is stealing, and by stealing I mean experiencing their work without paying. Putting it into specific terms is not changing my meaning.

Also I hope you realize saying "fallacy" is not equivalent to trying to call bs on me. If you think I've actually committed a fallacy, go ahead and let me know what it is, and if you don't actually know any formal logic, then I'm sure ChatGPT will give you some good ideas.

In regards to your webpage example, websites have a common expectation of loading to the home page for viewing for free. If you have a website that was not explicit about the requirement for payment before the user went on it, then no it's not the same thing, and in fact there's not even a contract with going to a website so there's no legal basis for your example either.

Your arguments are getting less and less in the same vein of piracy

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_form

No

With your second question:

Tracking - Tracking isn't stealing, that's a privacy question.

Building a Profile - I mean not stealing but also vague so not sure what's the point of trying to argue this one? Like if you keep going with this line of thinking you end up with "you looked at me funny which made me feel weird so you're stealing by stealing my joy". (Absurd example but trying to show how abstract arguments don't end up working) Then we would probably loop back to fallacy of composition.

Malware - Serving malware is a criminal act and you can block it, but you're also not usually going to CNN.com and expecting them to download a crypto miner on your hardware. You are, however, expecting advertisements, hence why you're using an adblocker.

Bogging down your resources/other garbage - I mean idk, case by case basis.

You keep trying to paint with broad strokes but that's not how these things usually work. In my original example, it works because it's a simple transaction the artist wanted. Pay me 1$ for my art and you can view it. They created it privately with the intent of selling, and by downloading it for free, you're breaking that intent and depriving them of potential revenue.

Essentially the original argument I made is

1. Stealing (in this context) is depriving someone of their unearned revenue by duplicating or taking their work without their express consent and payment.

2. Stealing is wrong

3. Pirating is stealing

So, 4. Pirating is wrong

You took my comment and attempted to do this:

1. Stealing (in this context) is depriving someone of their unearned revenue by duplicating or taking their work without their express consent and payment.

2. Stealing is wrong

3. Reading my comment for free is stealing

So, 4. Reading my comment for free is wrong

Except step 3 is an invalid assertion since we are on a public forum with accounts created for the express purpose of reading and writing on said public forum for free. Your argument makes the assumption that because an action (using something for free) is wrong in one instance, it must be wrong in all instances.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=A%20... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

It's interesting that people devalue a good just because it's digital on a tech focused website named HackerNews lol.

Yes that is quite literally also depriving them of revenue, and quite possibly their only source of revenue if they're a free website/app.

>taking advantage of free trials for services without any intent of becoming a subscriber

Yeah no, it's in the name...FREE TRIAL. It's literally given out for free.

>content cartels

Yes how dare companies/people want to get paid for their creative works, must be a cartel.

In terms of "when" it's stolen re downloading vs watching, I would say when you download it personally as you now have access to the content without paying.