I suppose my argument is that if a law is unjust, then so is the punishment for breaking it.

My bad directing towards whistleblowers when you meant journos. And only about them encouraging others to break the law. Even talking about journalists though I think the same logic can apply. If one lives in for example, an authoritarian regime, any word spoken against the state is considered unlawful. If we apply the situation to less authoritarian government, that still have laws against disseminating information about the government, we run up against the same issues. It's against the law to show your government doing wrong. So what recourse is left but to break the law in hopes that you can effect some change?

How is a journalist or a whistleblower to call out the worst without breaking the laws or discussing the same? I get that they can sometimes, your two examples, though I'm not familiar with the instances, I'm sure are great examples of when it all goes right. But some information that should be made known, will see the government pursuing the full extent of the law and potentially beyond, against individuals involved in its dissemination. Journalist, whistleblower, exfiltrator, won't matter.

I can understand protecting innocent people by censoring what comes out. I think that Assange is a scumbag and don't like how he operates, but I also think governments need to be held accountable for their actions and choices.

I probably have the jargon wrong as I'm no lawyer. But I would still think the count severity should matter more than it does.

DDOS against a little self hosted instance isn't really a concern I'd have. I'd be more concerned with the scraping of private information, ransomware, password compromises, things of that nature. If you keep your edge devices on the latest security patches and you are cognizant on what you are exposing and how, you'll be fine.

I know that's the norm but you'd think that even with it being the first time he was caught, the 30 count would warrant a more serious response. What would they do if he did this 30 times with a trial between each commitment of a felony? I think that should be a deciding factor even if it's not likely to be.

How do you suggest a whistleblower actually get and release the information they need to prove themselves if not by breaking bad laws that protect corruption?

Not trying to drum up an argument but I think your black and white stance is flawed.

"I am the girl anachronism!" 🎵

Yeah, I wasn't intending to say go buy it. Just saying it's decent hardware despite meta being a really shitty company.

HELL YEAH BROTHER! I LOVE CRANKIN MY MFING HOG SO HARD IT LEADS TO A, LARGE THROBBING POSITIVE MINDSET!!!

I mean, fuck Meta sure, but the Oculous is a decent headset. (granted quest is lower end)

I had this in my head on repeat for a week solid after hearing it the first time. I'm ok with this though because bread is pretty great.

Well that's fuckin adorable.