The only rights one ever actually has are those rights that someone, somewhere is willing to enforce. Anything else is pernicious, deceptive myth based on hand-waving, not fact.

You can't take something someone doesn't actually have in the first place. That doesn't mean they'll be okay with whatever you do, because most people live within an illusory worldview that presumes immunity and safety on multiple fronts where those safeties and immunities do not actually exist.

The key to dealing with this reality in the most successful way is to understand what is actually going on. If one proceeds under the assumption that no one will screw them because "rights", one is very likely to suffer multiple screwings, some of which may be profound. Unfortunately, neither modern parenting or our public educational system does a proper (or often, any) job of informing people about this particular issue.

1) No one should make records of acts the participant(s) intended to be private, public
2) No one should inculcate others that sexuality and bodies are shameful
3) Responsibility extends both ways - 1 is only harmful due to 2, but it harmful
4) "victim" is not in any way an inaccurate characterization of individuals in such records
5) Victims of self-destructive thoughts and actions bear high levels of responsibility
6) As with all personal & interpersonal matters, informed consent is a critical underpinning
7) Participating in pearl-clutching and increases harm and risk of harm. Don't.

Also, you have a huge number of girls in this country who are trafficked.

The data does not support that contention. Here's a link with some well-researched facts, complete with useful references. I suggest some reading in a thoughtful vein.

There is overwhelming evidence that the "trafficking" narrative is agitprop specifically designed to trigger moral outrage. Those who spread the meme and those who believe it are the actual victims here.

It's cute that you think it works that way.

It's cute that you assume I think it works that way. It should work that way, and in order to effect any change it should be presented group-neutral. I am simply pointing out the defective assumptions and language that are complicit in making it the way it is as a matter of backlash against stupidity.

Opt-in is the right thing to do.

Opt-out is the wrong thing to do

If some action of yours is "optional," let the user CHOOSE if they want it done; don't inflict it on them and assume that's ok. EVER.

ts popularity has ballooned in recent years, and victims are disproportionately women.

It makes no difference if the victims are disproportionately any group; it would have to be UNIQUE to that group. Otherwise, if it's bad for people, it's bad for people, and no distinction need be made about age, gender or any other subgroup. It's not equality if we only consider some of the people, is it?

Doesn't bother me one bit if someone looks the facts up and presents that as part of their argument or statement. I'm just delighted to not be engaged by BS. I like to learn, too. Further, I suspect that the very act of looking something up, when that actually happens, is educational at least to some extent to the one doing the looking. In other words, I think it does make us smarter. It's certainly smarter behavior. Also, I outright question the need to know everything in specific, when you are both correct and informed on the generalities, and know how to look up, and how to comprehend, the specifics. That's not stupidity or ignorance. That's power.

"The Internet is such a powerful environment, where you can enter any question, and you basically have access to the world's knowledge at your fingertips,"

With the quoted remark in mind, it becomes even more difficult to accept the ignorance that anti-vaxxers, both of the rabid extreme positions taken on the warming question, the "Obamacare is destroying Murica" pushers, the anti-gays, those on both the far left and the far right extremes, the "constitution is a living document" bewildered, the superstitious, the homeopaths, the "quartz crystals boost your immune system" loonies, Fox news watchers, etc.

All that knowledge out there, so very easy to get to in easily digestible form thanks to powerful search engines and a huge variety of presentations, plenty of verifiable facts to counter the endless waves of ignorance, deceit, and agitprop... and yet...

With under 50 comments per spoof, you'd think those responsible would get the message that very few are interested.

But apparently not.

Oh well. See everyone tomorrow, when the site is over this.

Sorry, I thought I had been clear.

I wasn't talking about regional control of distribution by publishers, I was talking about arbitrary interference with materials intended for the end user, where the end user is interfered with by bad actors, most notably, government busybodies.

I own a literary agency and deal with copyright and regional issues a great deal more often, and in more ways, than most people. But that isn't what I was talking about, as it seems like a non-issue to me -- as long as we have nations and varying costs of distribution, we'll have some effective form of regional controls. So I had gone off on what I thought was an obvious tangent. Apparently not.

If you know of grammar errors or other writing problems / errors on my page(s), I will be delighted to fix them, and also to learn how to do better. Because doing the best one can is important. Better to strive to paint like an actual painter than to be satisfied with finger-painting like an addled child. So fire away. :)

Humans have learned to focus sound too. We've already gone the cetacean/bat route, and are now working merrily on the crustacian's methods.

"Geoblocking" is just a tech-specific euphemism for "muzzling content we don't want you to see."

As such, it is entirely disrespectful, specifically in that it attempts to deny people the ability to make their own choices. It is a direct manifestation of "we know better than you what you should be able to see, read, listen to, and use."

This is about personal agency. Part of that WRT to network access is -- should be -- the choice to implement boundaries of your own using the appropriate tools. Of which there are many, ranging from user-friendly whitelists and blacklists to keeping your hosts file updated (highly recommended, btw... great for killing advertisers, too.) And of course, there's always "I'll just click away from here", an actual sane adult choice.

The one upside is that in some cases, this kind of top-down systemic oppression will just make people learn about secure proxies faster.

I'm pretty generous when it comes to hiring people to do things I don't want too, but who...

Ok, suggestion for just such a hire (so you can have an opportunity to be generous!): Retain someone to teach you the difference between "to" and "too." :/

Math:

Ameliorating $4/month waste:

$1000 / 4 = 250 months until positive ROI. Your $1000 estimate is way high, though -- what he proposed is about $300 at most, at the scale he indicated. Probably not even that. It mostly depends on the wiring. Long is costly. Short and efficient, you're way down in costs. The rest is relatively constant. Solar panels, charge regulator, inverter. I show the closer numbers along with yours in square brackets: [$300 / 4 = 75 months until +ROI]

That's 20 years. [6 years]

After that, it's a constant ~$48 / year win.

Over the working and retired lifetime, figuring age 30 is when this is done in deference to slashdot's basic demographic as I perceive it, 40 years remain, so 20 [6] of that is payment, which means the ROI is 20 x $48 = $960 [34 x $48 = $1632]

There's also the social benefit of not drawing that power. It all adds up.

There's also the benefit of not losing functionality when power goes out.

And it's fun and personally rewarding.

And it's affordable, much more so that typically larger solar projects.

So, no, no stupidity. You're not thinking clearly, and to top that off, your data is bad.

but why should anyone but the individual pay for said options???

We have to start from the premise that said individual may well not be able to afford these options.

Then, we pay for the same reason that we as group pay for other things that benefit society over the long term, like roads, fire departments, public education, defense, sewers, sidewalks, dikes, rain gutters. We know certain needs are going to come up, and/or certain events will actually happen, so we prepare for them in some way that optimizes the outcome.

Unwanted children are very often a serious burden both on society at large, and often upon the parents, and often even to themselves. The workforce is diminished and damaged, and people grow up under conditions that start out with a fairly strong negative impetus.

We benefit directly by stronger parent-child relations; by prepared parents as opposed to "oh crap, I/we didn't plan on THIS!" parents; By better educated and happier citizens.

It's the future we're investing in. That's one of the best things society can do.

Lastly, the evaluation should, at least in my estimation, be based upon this criteria:

Which is worse? Unwanted children, loss of productivity, social turmoil and misery, or a very reasonable levy upon the citizens in general?

All family planning services taken together ca. 2010 account for 2.37B out of the total of 3.55 trillion spent, or .06%, or 6/10,000ths of the total expenditure. That means for every $1000.00 you paid in taxes, that 60 cents of that went to cover family planning. Not too harsh, I'm thinking.

To me, if that is the question (and I think it is), the answer is pretty much a foregone conclusion.