<h2 id="re-show-comments.">RE: show comments.</h2>
<h2 id="sgoti-replies-to-a-comment-or-two.">Sgoti replies to a comment
or two.</h2>
<ul>
<li><a
href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr3972/index.html">hpr3972 ::
Thunderbird inbox filtering: keeping a clean/orderly inbox.</a><br />
</li>
<li><strong>Source:</strong> <a
href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr3972/index.html#comments"
title="Why unsubscribe?">Comment By: frank</a><br />
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>Why unsubscribe?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don't know how it is in the US, but in Europe, a newsletter by law
needs to have a clear way of unsubscribing by providing a link
somewhere.<br />
Why unsubscribe? 1. For the environment. It is dirt cheap to spam
e-mails around. But the amount adds up in electricity and traffic. 2.
For your own privacy. 2a. If you use a commercial mail provider that
scans your mails, then each time you get one of those, it is scanned and
the profile on you grows. 2b. In case the sender of the newsletter is
ever hacked (chances are it will at a certain point), your address will
leak to the crackers. 2c. The sender has your address and can (and
probably will) trade it for money. In an ideal world (we all like to
think that hope dies last) they delete your address when you
unsubscribe. If not, it's probably a violation of GDPR.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a
href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4008/index.html">hpr4008 ::
Sextortion. Good Heavens!</a><br />
</li>
<li><strong>Source:</strong> <a
href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4008/index.html#comments"
title="This show is very opinionated">Comment By: Another Guy on the
internet</a><br />
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>This show is very opinionated</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The nice thing about podcasts and radio is that you can monologue
whatever nonsense you like and act like it is the single truth in the
universe. That is exactly what is going on this show. First there is
some useful information about sextortion, the forms it manifests in and
consequences it can have in real life, that's the good stuff. Then comes
the bad and the straight-out ugly bit. While the speaker starts of with
a pretty factual analysis, eventually he slides into a very much
opinionated stance against any form of digital eroticism. Don't do
<code>*****</code> kids! Where have we heard that before, right?
Seriously, if you are an adult having a problem with the fact that
people exchange nudes in their sexual discovery journey then that is
just your own moral problem, do not project that on the rest of the
world please. People have done that about sex, drugs, music, religious
believes, cultural habits, and pretty much everything we humans design
to entertain ourselves and to carry out our identity into the world.
Saying "Don't do that" really is totally random moral stance since what
is found to be offensive in your part of the world might be totally
innocent behavior where I live and vice versa. So, again, because
repetition seems to work for Coca-Cola: don't project your own random
moral objections onto the world. They are legit, they are rightfully
yours to keep. But don't try to push them further than that, because
that's just randomly stupid.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a
href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4008/index.html">hpr4008 ::
Sextortion. Good Heavens!</a><br />
</li>
<li><strong>Source:</strong> <a
href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4008/index.html#comments"
title="Poor quality.">Comment By: hpr listener</a><br />
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>Poor quality.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>SGOTY. Up to this point, your shows have been of good quality and
well considered.<br />
I will preface this with the fact that yes, sexstortion is something
that exists. Observing some basic safety measures when using the
internet could easily prevent it. It is a societal problem in,
especially in the age of social media.<br />
This show however, was a hideous disappointment.<br />
Utterly condescending to other human beings, particularly victims of
this. Moral-panic ridden pearl clutching nonsense.<br />
You opted not to :- Actually speak with any victim of the phenomenon
about their lived experience.<br />
Nor did you cite any <em>actual</em> subject matter expert, such as Eva
Galperin (Cybersecurity director at the EFF, works with sextortion
victims), Violet Blue (an author and journalist who covers the
phenomenon and adjacent social/tech matters extensively)<br />
Your sources amount to :-<br />
The FBI, a government agency known globally for utter incompetence in
understanding social phenomena, and known to frequently lie to further
its own, often ill-considered goals. and Reddit. REDDIT.<br />
Thats a fairly clear cut case of source bias.<br />
Repeated mentions of 'evidence' that you opt not to cite directly or
clearly.<br />
Nothing whatsoever besides moral grandstanding and a baseless belief you
have any right to tell others how to conduct their personal lives.<br />
Seriously, DO. BETTER.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
