|
| ▲ | SukadarBukadar 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Is it "just disagreeing with them" or is it taking away privacy _from those publicly renouncing the right to privacy_, with goal of protecting the right to privacy of everyone else, who didn't renounce it, by pointing out the hipocrisy and that it actually is important, even to those who claim otherwise trying to take it from others? |
|
| ▲ | my-next-account 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's a bit simplified, isn't it? He's pointing out precisely that "doxing" the entire population of Denmark shouldn't be acceptable to her, and that she's literally not accepting herself being "doxxed." If it was about, I dunno, pizza toppings or school budgeting, then obviously the actions would have been different. |
|
| ▲ | sucrosesucrose 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The lifes of powerful people must be transparent. |
| |
| ▲ | lemagedurage an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Having their business transparent makes sense but by restricting people's personal lives like this would disincentivize good people from rising to power, which is not what we want. | | |
| ▲ | sucrosesucrose 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | People that want to be powerful for personal gain will be filtered. People that legimitely want to give their all for their country will be encouraged. | |
| ▲ | kachnuv_ocasek an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Good, I don't want people rising to unlimited, uncheckable power and creating oppressive hierarchies in general. |
| |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The most powerful people are those who are billionaires |
|
