my_hat_stinks

I leave on time, how is that an insult? I'd be much more insulted if someone asked me to work for them for free. That's what unpaid overtime is.

I think you've misunderstood. They're arguing against the capitalist approach in which there was an attempt to fire and rehire employees to cheat employees and save the company money. The system which prevented the company from doing so was government intervention to protect workers, which is not a capitalist approach.

it’s pretty shady to be looking for legal safe harbor for scammers who rob people all over the world every day.

This is an argument that happened entirely within your own head, not in this thread. I think I made it clear right from the start I'm against scammers and approve of (ethical) actions taken against them, but I'm also against people who dox, invade privacy, engage in vigilantism, and gain unauthorised access to other's computer systems (particularly when it's for profit and ego). These are not mutually exclusive, there is no disconnect there. I even gave an example of more appropriate actions to take against scammers, notably actions that are actually effective.

Criticism against "justice" porn is not remotely the same thing as condoning scammers. You're arguing in bad faith and you know it.

This is very untrue and you definitely shouldn't be giving out legal advice like this on topics you're not knowledgeable on, but exactly which part is a crime and how criminal it is will depend on your local laws. Some such computer misuse laws are intentionally written very broadly with generic wording precisely so that edge cases such as unintentionally granting an unauthorised party access to a system does not clear them of wrongdoing when they do so.

As for how to tell which laws are relevant and whether you've breached them? Well, I'm sure the answer will shock you.

When I was in school the less well-off kids got their lunch free. There was definitely no equivalent to a "marker" the linked article mentions, unless you include the lunch ticket. I was actually kind of jealous at the time, I didn't understand why I had to pay when I didn't bring my own lunch and they didn't.

Singling out kids because their parents can't afford food is kind of fucked up.

Accessing a system you're not authorised to access, regardless of how that access was obtained, is generally not legal. The way to sort that out is, you guessed it, a trial.

That argument doesn't work, all you're doing is pointing out the issues with vigilantism. He's also committing a crime, are the scammers now in the right too since they're targeting a suspected criminal?

This is why trials exist.

I suggest you read the next few words in that sentence which you conveniently left out of your quote, might help clear up any confusion.

I guess you could technically argue that the linked article promotes an anti-gun stance so it could be labelled propaganda (though I suspect you mean something more specific than just promoting a political stance).

However the graph itself is just the raw data displayed nicely so it's hard to argue that's propaganda or misleading. The graph is a little out of date but you can verify the current data by checking the source listed, the only thing that isn't displayed publicly on that page is the subdivision of the now 27 instances where a bystander shot the attacker. Edit: This does also include knife and gun violence, though.

Your assertion that more guns would make the results "vastly different" isn't based in any evidence, while the counter-argument that stronger gun controls and less gun-centric culture prevents mass shootings can be clearly demonstrated by simply looking at literally any other country. According to Wikipedia there have been only 45 mass shooting deaths (including attackers) in total in the UK this century. When a shooting happens here it's always newsworthy.

I'll definitely be downvoted for this too but I completely agree. There's a fine line between entertainment at scammers' expense and vigilantism for views. Publicly spreading the faces of people you're accusing of a crime without any sort of trial is definitely the latter and has little direct impact on shutting down these operations. This video screams ego trip.

I used to watch Kitboga and they were much more ethical (at least when I watched). They'd lean heavily into the entertainment side, waste a lot of the scammers' time which they then couldn't spend on actual victims, and report/shutdown accounts as they came up which actually does directly impact their operation. Your scam call center still works if one of your workers gets their face posted online, it doesn't if you have no bank account.

A little ham-fisted, sure, but if you think it's irrelevant you evidently didn't take any time to actually think about it (you did also reply instantly, so I'll take that over you lacking reading comprehension).

I'll simplify.

Digital piracy is illegal copying of unlicenced content.
Alice creates content.
Alice licences the content to Bob.
Bob decides to distribute the content with advertisements from Charlie.
You download the content.
Charlie does not pay Bob.
You did not breach any licences.
You did not pirate the content.

And just to further clarify, Alice is the person who made a video, Bob is Youtube, Charlie is an advertiser. Your argument is not an ad is piracy if "the advertisement company [hasn't] paid the content creator." The advertiser pays the distribution company, and the relationship between those two companies is irrelevant. The advertiser failing to pay does not retroactively turn you into a pirate.

The whole argument is pointless in the first place, it's irrelevant whether or not you consider ad blocking to be technically piracy. A sensible adblock argument would be around the ethics of manipulation versus payment, or security versus whatever it is advertisers want. Arguing semantics doesn't matter.

This is nonsense. Your argument is that you're a pirate if one corporation with no relation to the content fails to pay a corporation which distributes but does not own the content. If you watch an ad then the advertising company refuses to pay you do not suddenly become a pirate.

If a struggling McDonald's franchise fails to pay some franchisee fee that does not mean you pirated your big mac.