I dunno, it makes sense to me. New information or music releases can come out after someone's death, and you asked what he's been up to recently, not if/when he had died

I don't get it, is something wrong with that response? I looked it up and that is when he died.

It's not unreasonable to answer yes to that first question; that's why it's not the most sound argument. I was pretty firmly in the 'nothing to hide' camp for a long time because that was the only reason I heard. I really don't care if some random government office worker knows about all the intimate details about my life. I don't mind if you know I've been having prostate problems, but that's not something I would tell to someone I know personally.

I feel like the people in this thread saying you should ask for personal details are kind of missing the point of the 'nothing to hide' argument. It's not that they feel they have nothing to hide from everyone, it's that they feel they have nothing to hide from those with access to their data (governments/corporations). Knowing intimate life details of someone you know personally is very different from knowing intimate life details of some random person you'll never meet. I would argue something like this instead:

Unless you're a newborn, everyone in the US has broken thousands of laws in their life. It's unavoidable. If corporations/the government have records of all that, if people don't have privacy, the powers that be have the power to put anyone and everyone in prison for the rest of their lives at their discretion.

Even if you're not worried now, once your data is out there it's not coming back. You may agree with the policy of government and corporations now, but can you be sure that'll be the case in ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Who knows how laws and regimes will change, and through all that, they'll always have power over you.

That's terrible of course, but the story alone doesn't really counter the 'nothing to hide' argument when they did have something to hide.

It's the actions that Reddit took that were the problem, not admins taking action in general. But as long as there are alternatives from federation I don't see an issue with admins doing something about this, whether or not I agree with it.

US politics only is in the community rules.

The latter. Rule 2 of the community is "Must be articles relevant to US political news."

I tried to give this video a real chance, but it's just... really bad.

Their first main point, as best as I can tell through the fluff, is that choice is actually bad because choices have pros and cons - their example being desktop environments. I don't think I need to explain why this is a bizarre take; that's the whole point of choice. It's like saying the whole concept of choosing an ice cream flavor is a joke because you don't like chocolate ice cream.

Then they start talking about using outdated packages in Linux. Which, of course, isn't an inherently bad thing in all situations, despite their anecdote about having to use an outdated version of software with a memory leak. Amusingly they say you should keep everything 100% updated all the time because breakage basically never happens (and that updates breaking things is a myth perpetuated by Microsoft) then say Arch Linux is prone to breakage. The real kicker is that this whole point of theirs not only has nothing to do with 'choice on Linux being a joke', choice is actually the solution to this problem - being able to choose stability vs cutting edge is a core part of Linux. What's hilarious is that they actually say if you want stability you should choose a distro focused on stability.

Then they talk about how proprietary software often doesn't support Linux. Which sucks to be sure, but has little to do with the central thesis of the video (as much as it has one) and is just a pointless snipe at low-hanging fruit.

The video is generic pop clickbait composed from a mix of criticisms everyone has heard and complete nonsense. It's a meaningless collection of ideas and gripes that neither contribute to the larger conversation nor serve to educate people.

Honestly I like this better

I love it. I think that should be the official title for our mini generation.

And after that he goes directly into a tedious story that does more to make me dislike him than actually build up the point he's trying to make. I agree with the basic premise of the article, but the endless passive aggressive anecdotes really don't help.