TaterTot

Your mamma’s so fat Ben Kenobi said: “That’s no moon… that’s yo mamma!”.

well… kinda… technically

Sure, but I was talking about general complaints. Things like, “the drivers here are so bad”, “the winters are too cold and the summers are too hot”, “the government sure is poorly run”, “the yellow sports car parked out in front of the fast food place I work looks so stupid”, “I hate my boss and his stupid name, like seriously, who is named Methuselah Honeysuckle”, and “If they don’t give me a raise this time, I’m going to start a union, I’m serious, working a Chipotle sucks”.

You know, the kind of stuff that could never be traced back to me.

Well, guess it’s nice to know I’m not giving away my location when I complain.

I kind of want to know what “trick” it was going to offer to spot r’s faster.

How could it possibly improve on “count them”.

Couldn’t agree more. The rise of digital surveillance has sparked a necessary counterwave, a deeper reexamination of why we valued privacy in the first place.

And while I’d love to claim credit, it sounds like you and I map have taken a similar deep dive into the topic. I’m really just standing on the shoulders of thinkers who’ve been wrestling with this far longer and more deeply than I have. My response was just an attempt to distill the ideas that resonated most, hopefully with a little clarity.

Glad it landed.

Edit: I wrote a long rebuttal last night. Wasn’t sober. Woke up, read it, and thought: Ain’t nobody got time for that.

So instead, just the core point:

It’s not a stretch to say privacy protects both our legal rights and our willingness to access and share information.

It is a stretch to claim that not recording and uploading everything I do in private will cause a “state of deformity and disease.”

That’s not physics. That’s selling data collection as snake oil. It’s an attempt to justify a world view without examining it’s ramifications.

I agree: knowledge should be free. But that doesn’t mean all information, especially private lives and deeply personal details, should be universally accessible.

People aren’t data packets. The idea that “everyone should know everything about everyone” assumes superhuman recall and universal comfort with exposure, neither of which exist. If we’re talking sci-fi (like the Borg), total transparency works for them because individuality and autonomy is erased. But that doesn’t work for people as we currently exist.

Here’s the key: privacy doesn’t hinder open information, it enables it. Encryption, VPNs, private browsing, these tools protect your ability to seek and share freely, without fear of surveillance or retaliation. Without privacy, power chills dissent. People stop asking questions.

So yes, free knowledge matters. But personal lives aren’t public records.
Privacy isn’t the enemy of openness.
It’s its best defense.

Edit: Reworked this to streamline my point. Some of the phrasing no longer matches the quotes you used in your response, the the general points remain the same.

Privacy is a fundamental right that protects autonomy, personal dignity, and the freedom to engage with society without fear of judgment or control. It acts as a crucial safeguard against authoritarianism. Without it, every choice we make can be monitored, recorded, and scrutinized by those in power. History shows that surveillance is often used not to protect people, but to label harmless behaviors as suspicious or deviant, creating pretexts for further erosion of rights.

But beyond its role in protecting civil liberties, privacy is essential for personal growth and mental well-being. We all need space to be ourselves, to practice new skills without perfection, explore interests that might seem uncool or immature, enjoy “guilty pleasure” media, or simply act silly, without worrying about how it will be perceived or used against us. These moments aren’t trivial. They’re where creativity, healing, and self-discovery happen. Privacy gives us room to evolve, to make mistakes, and to be human

Okay okay sure, but where did the egg come from if no chicken then?

it’s immigrants who brought their culture and then adapted it

Yep, those are American’s.

Okay, but I bet that was a sick drift

Absolutely!

What’s great about The Good Place’s “censorship” (imho), is the joke would work even if they weren’t actually being censored. I get that it’s a unique advantage of the shows premise, so it’s more of an exception than the rule, but damn if it isn’t well played!

Depends, what do they wanna do with it?

Otherwise just the OS they are most comfortable with.

If they are equally uncomfortable with all options, and have only the most rudimentary requirements, probably a tablet using the same OS as their phone.

If they genuinely wanted to take my opinion on the best choice, even if it meant learning, Linux. Probably something like Mint to start.

Fuck yeah, you go girl! Always make the character that speaks to your heart!

Is… is that a ‘Panic at the Hakusho’ reference?

Honestly, some writers have gotten pretty creative with censorship. Firefly’s use of “in universe” curses are a good example.

Plus such classics as the tv edit of The Big Lebowski’s “Find me in the alps!”

I would prefer no censorship, but that’s no reason to disregard the fine work of creators trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Lol, you are the embodiment of rational internet discourse.

huh… took less time than I expected… go figure

Seems like you just did