![](https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/5682d551-9060-4fac-8bbe-03a6974f3ee2.png)
![](https://feddit.de/pictrs/image/49tOnNfU4x.jpg)
Das ist ein Zitat vom Hutman, ziemlich sicher nicht die Meinung des Posters.
German Cryptographer in Dutch exile
Das ist ein Zitat vom Hutman, ziemlich sicher nicht die Meinung des Posters.
Man könnte das ja wiederum als Vernichtung von Beweismitteln oder Behinderung oder so auslegen.
Und genau da liegt das Problem: Die Rechtslage ist widersprüchlich und undurchdacht, weil es sich hier um ein Gesetz handelt, dass mit Entrüstung statt tatsächlichem Kinderschutz motiviert ist.
Sehr zuverlässige Faustregel: Wer über Kinderschutz in dem Bereich redet, interessiert sich praktisch NIE für den Schutz von Kindern und führt in fast allen Fällen übles im Schilde.
Das geht ja soweit, dass in der öffentlichen Diskussion ja noch nicht einmal betrachtet wird, ob Verbote in dem Bereich überhaupt geeignet sind Kinder zu schützen, oder ob sie viel mehr dafür Sorgen das Pädophile weniger Möglichkeit zur Sublimation haben und dadurch sogar zu mehr Kindesmissbrauch führen könnten. Die einzige Studie die ich zu dem Thema mal gesehen habe, hat nämlich sogar eher in letztere Richtung gedeutet! Aber evidenzbasierter Kinderschutz ist ja generell total unbeliebt, alleine wenn man sich ansieht wie viele Menschen was gegen den schulischen Sexualkundeunterricht haben, der nachweislich den Besten Kinderschutz darstellt.
Das gilt insbesondere auch wenn sie mit dem Bild schnurstracks zur Polizei gehen um Anzeige zu erstatten. Wer es nicht sofort löscht macht sich (nach wie vor!!!) strafbar. Die neue Regelung ermöglich nur, dass die Staatsanwaltschaft es fallen lassen kann!
Die Folgen waren KOMPLETT vorhergesehen. Das war JEDEM klar der sich auch nur zwei Minuten mit dem Thema beschäftigt hat und ALLE Experten waren sich einig, dass genau das passieren würde, was eingetreten ist.
Ja, die Änderung ist richtig und wichtig, aber jetzt die alter Regierung die den Schund eingeführt hat frei zu sprechen ist völlig unangemessen!
I’m not saying vandalism is illegal. I’m say that it borders on immoral and that there is a better, more radical (and thus effective) alternative that one might expect to be illegal but in fact isn’t.
You can when it comes to copyright. That’s EU-law and anything else would be such a horrible idea that no country would ever set up a law saying otherwise.
If you could simply revoke copyright licenses you would completely kill any practicality of selling your copyrighted works and it would fully undermine any purpose it served in the first place.
Frankly, the solution here isn’t vandalism, it’s setting up a competing side and copying the content over. The license of stackoverflow makes that explicitly legal. Anything else is just playing around and hoping that a company acts against its own interests, which has rarely ever worked before.
it is legally still your copyright, since you produced the content. Pretty sure in EU they cannot prevent you from deleting your content.
They absolutely can, you gave them an explicit (under most circumstances irrevocable) permission to do so. That’s how contracts work.
Frankly I don’t see any way whatsoever that this would fly, and that’s a good thing!
Imagine what it would mean for software-development if one angry dev could request the deletion of all their contributions at a moments notice by pointing to a right to be forgotten. Documentation is really not meaningfully different from that.
Can we please not do the “it hurts the other side more”-bullshit? Especially in light of the fact that Viagra has legitimate medical uses outside of ED and that ED can also be caused by factors that affect conservatives a lot less, such as HRT for trans women.
Iran attacked the specific military installations that Israel used to perform their highly illegal attack on the Iranian embassy. This is the most textbook example of textbook examples of appropriate, proportional and measured self-defense we have seen in a very long time in the entire region. The relevant thing to count is not the number of missiles or drones, but the number of targets and their relevance to the case.
I’ve had issue with very worn out 3.5mm adapters before! Like: I was on an intercontinental flight earlier this week and my cable barely held in the worn out port of the plane. I agree that there are fewer issues with software refusing to work, but the hardware-connection can be quite sucky on them too.
I hated that too at the time, but I have to admit, that in practice this has not really turned into an issue basically ever: My headphones and earbuds are bluetooth anyways and I did get a usb-c to headphone adapter that I store with my earphone’s backup audio cable for the very rare case that I need it (I can count on one hand the instances for when that happened). And in those very few cases I wasn’t about to charge my phone anyways, which is the one argument for why you might want both.
So, I don’t know, maybe it really is time to move on. I will defnitely say that I’m not a big fan of analog cables, so maybe a more general move to USB-C for audio might be the right way to go in the first place?
Those were the first earbuds they offered, which were just OEM-ones where they main point of attention was on getting the workers a living wage (which is fair enough, they are called “fairphone”, not “repairablephone”), just like the Fairphone 1 where they apparently wanted to collect some experience in the space first.
I have them because I bought my fairphone 4 like one week before they had a free pair with every purchase on offer and wrote to their support, who graciously gave me a voucher as well. I don’t use them a lot, because I do have pretty good over-ear headphones, but they do come in handy on occasion, as they fit into my handbag, which means I am more likely to actually have them with me.
The scientist in me is sooo tempted by the idea of setting up a website where people have to classify pictures of cis and well-passing trans people by AGAB to really drive the point home that no, those fuckers CANNOT tell. They can usually only tell when the person in question is in the progress of medical transition which is an instance of “no shit Sherlock, why do you think we want to get this done as quickly as possible”. And yes, Enbys are a bit of a different story, but even a lot of them pass very well as the opposite of their AGAB, even though they often don’t even identify as that.
The big issue with this is that the vast majority of people making those kinds of statements are incapable of thinking rationally and instead just continue being bigots.
Misandry is sadly extremely widespread and often not even recognized as a problem: Erin Pizzey who invented modern women’s shelters quickly found out that women were just as capable of being violent to their partners and logically tried to start men’s shelters as well.
What she had not expected was that instead with the support that she previously got with women’s shelters, the same did not happen with men’s shelters; instead she received insane amounts of hate, victim-blaming and death-threats from radical feminists. She had to repeatedly flee her countries because of material safety-concerns as a result of that.
In some way the peak I encountered of this kind of hate was some Fedi-site that had a rule banning misandry (good!), because it also harms trans people. Now the second part is very much true and as a trans girl I agree that it does and that that is bad, but that should not be the primary argument for why it is bad. That’s like saying anti-judaism is bad, because some Jews are white or saying misogyny is bad, because it also affects trans men or saying anti-black racism is bad, because it might affect white people with a strong tan: The statement is true and the secondary victim group fully preserves protection, but by making that statement you betray an incredibly bigoted mindset that doesn’t even respect the primary target-group enough to care about them at all.
There is a lot feminism that really just amounts to men-hating and that is why I do not use that label for myself. I believe in equivalent treatment and rights and so should everyone;
Well it’s the old fact that reality has a left-wing bias, as someone once put it.
That’s not how it worked for me either of the two times. I don’t have any memories of going out the first time and I think I kinda woke up kinda normally both times.
Okay, but this is a fundamentally different reason that isn’t born out of general racism or xenophobia.
It’s maybe not ideal, but I don’t consider this to be a morally reprehensible attitude.