• XLE@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    404 media was already thorough in its previous research before actually tracking a book order. Despite your insinuation, there was no foolishness.

    But if we follow your billionaire defense to its logical conclusion, they should not have bothered verifying their leads, and left the space billionaire alone.

    • joe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      there was no foolishness

      The foolishness was yours. “The ends (in hindsight) justify the means” is not a particularly wise stance.

      Like I said, what if it wasn’t Amazon that was ordering the books; would it then be okay?

      I understand the dislike of billionaires, but don’t let it stop you from thinking.

      • XLE@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The foolishness was yours

        You don’t need to stoop to insults.

        what if it wasn’t Amazon that was ordering the books

        Then the responsible journalists wouldn’t publish the story. I don’t know why you have so much disdain for this independent group.

        I’d hate to hear your takes when Ed Snowden “illegally” leaked files to journalists.

        I’m thinking about how your concern (which is borderline concern trolling) leaves no way to hold billionaires and their unethical companies accountable.

        Like you said:

        “The ends (in hindsight) justify the means” is not a particularly wise stance.

        Just imagine if we applied this to the AI weirdos.

        • joe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Then the responsible journalists wouldn’t publish the story.

          My concern isn’t the story, it’s the “hiding a tracking device in an order with an anonymous party”. That’s an invasion of privacy no matter who it’s done to. You’re presumably only okay with it because you dislike who it was done to, which is why I’m asking you to consider it without hindsight. What if it were done to someone other than Amazon? Do you still support that invasion of privacy? Why or why not?

          • XLE@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Amazon isn’t a person, no corporation is. They should be subject to far more exposure.