Privacy, "Objective morality" and annunaki aliens

[space5 3]

On 2/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, John Gow said:

One way of interpreting what you're saying is that poor people, or at least, those who are in a state of poverty, do not deserve nor should they be concerned with online security, profiling, privacy, and so on. This certainly prevents a lot of people from taking this area of activism seriously, why should the majority of people care about it at all?

• Most people think of privacy in a selfish manner. They don't think about the grand moral framework behind privacy. They don't really consider the objective difference between right and wrong. Many privacy enthusiasts often advocate morally wrong things. While I like privacy, we should care about morality more than privacy. In a moral society, privacy isn't an obvious issue but will be respected. Only in tyranny, privacy becomes an issue but will be infringed upon. Privacy is an ancillary issue. Morality is the central issue on earth and the elephant in the room.
• Moral educators sacrifice their privacy by educating morality with their face and name on the internet. They understand the value proposition behind privacy, but they prioritize education.
• Poor people should start with basic operational security(don't consume porn or store porn on your computer. don't do stupid things that you will regret later.). They can learn some basic privacy which is easy, but if you learn basic operational security first, you can learn privacy later. Advanced privacy is a very complex topic which is basically a luxury reserved for the retired and the rich and the full-time computer technologists. We have to admit that not everyone has time to specialize in every little technical topic. There are million specialties. We can't learn them all. That's why I recommend learning basic operational security first and basic privacy later. Basic privacy should be good enough for most people. As I wrote above, if you don't have financial security, privacy doesn't matter at all. Privacy is basically a form of luxury reserved for people who have have some level of stability in their lives. If you are too busy to think, you don't have time to care about privacy.

[Staff 10087]

3 hours ago, space5 said:

Privacy is basically a form of luxury

Privacy is a fundamental human right enshrined in any charter of fundamental rights, including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and a series of amendments in the US constitution (including but not limited to the 4th Amendment).

The right to privacy has been equated to the right to life (for example by the India Supreme Court) and privacy (in the form of anonymity) has been recognized as an essential requisite to freedom of expression, according to a landmark & paramount decision of the US Supreme Court in 1994.
 

3 hours ago, space5 said:

if you don't have financial security, privacy doesn't matter at all.

It is exactly the opposite in many documented cases. The right to privacy is often perceived as a privilege for the wealthy but it is actually more crucial for financially poor individuals, as you can easily verify through the sources and reports by the UN and by many human rights advocate organizations. As far as it pertains to additional protection of privacy on the Internet through more effective data protection and a layer of anonymity, we contribute also by aiding, technically or financially, networks that are free for everyone, such as Tor, making privacy protection enhancement (small or big) affordable for more persons.
 

Quote

While I like privacy, we should care about morality more than privacy.  ... Moral educators sacrifice their privacy ... don't consume porn or store porn on your computer. don't do stupid things that you will regret later

While privacy is very precisely defined universally (and coded in law as one of the most important human rights in many countries), morality poses problems even with its definition. Codes of conduct endorsed by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, are multiple, and many of them are mutually incompatible.

Large groups of people endorse a "supreme, universal" morality that's totally refused by other groups. Some groups define "morality" as something that it's not even defined as "morality" by another group. Some groups claim that "morality" is something defined by some external, powerful entity, given to us through revelation and the interpretation of this revelation by selected persons, while other groups do not even agree about the existence of such external entity.

That's why many of the most famous "educators" you mention, in the course of history have been incensed as heroes of their times by some groups, while other groups have defined them, at the same time or later in history, as bloodthirsty monsters, crazy lunatics or anyway people against morality. Even your invitation to avoid a perfectly legal action in all Western countries shows that your "morality" is incompatible with the "morality" of many other individuals and groups.

Kind regards
 

[space5 3]

The statements below are my best understanding, and you have a right to believe whatever you want to believe and disagree with me as long as you don't make direct threats of violence.

23 hours ago, Staff said:

Privacy is a fundamental human right enshrined in any charter of fundamental rights, including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and a series of amendments in the US constitution (including but not limited to the 4th Amendment).

Objective morality is a mathematical discipline. It is like karmic math. A right is an action that doesn't initiate harm on other sentient beings, but not on oneself. A wrong is an action that does. A vice is an action that harms oneself. Harm can be categorized as 7 deadly sins which are murder, rape, trespass, theft, willful deception, coercion, and assault. Deception, coercion, trespass, and theft are only deadly if they accompany deadly consequences. They can be non-deadly. Murder, assault, and rape are deadly. Where does privacy violation fit? Privacy violation can be seen as a form of trespass. Trespass is theft of your well-being in your private domain. The moral implication is that if you upload your face pictures publicly on facebook for everyont to see, don't complain about privacy violation when OpenAI and other AI companies use your public face pictures to train AIs. Once you voluntarily post your pictures for everyone to see, you gave up privacy. They might be using your public pictures to train AIs, but these AI companies aren't distributing your pictures to make fun of you in front of everyone and make you feel uncomfortable in your private domain. They aren't trespassing, yet.

As I wrote above, privacy violation[(digital) trespass] doesn't have deadly consequences in most cases. Someone isn't assaulted or raped or murdered due to privacy violation. So, privacy violation isn't automatically a deadly sin. It is a sin, but it isn't deadly, yet.

The idea that humans can change right and wrong (by writing laws into existence) is moral relativism. Man-made laws are moral relativism. The only lawmaker in the universe is the creator. The original sin is moral relativism. Once humans tried to become God on earth by writing laws, they became slaves to each other.

23 hours ago, Staff said:

The right to privacy has been equated to the right to life

A right is an action that doesn't initiate harm on other sentient beings. It doesn't particularly make sense to equate one right with another.

23 hours ago, Staff said:

Even your invitation to avoid a perfectly legal action in all Western countries shows that your "morality" is incompatible with the "morality" of many other individuals and groups.

• You have a right to consume porn because consuming porn doesn't initiate harm on other sentient beings. However, that doesn't mean consuming porn is a good idea. From a practical operational security standpoint, it helps to not consume porn at all. Intelligence agencies will look up your pornhub profile and mock your sexual preferences in media outlets if you oppose bad people in power. Also, porn consumption is just another easy dopamine trigger. Being addicted to easy dopamine triggers is a vice. I advocate abstaining from all forms of vice. I quit porn, game, entertainment, social media, fast foods, exciting music, and all other forms of easy dopamine triggers. I am a modern monk who doesn't need a monastery to stay disciplined. It's totally legal anywhere for ever to consume fast foods, but I advocate not consuming it. I advocate not harming oneself with vices like fast foods, porn, game, etc, ...
• Objective morality was given by the creator to all sentient beings in the entire universe including all the possible multiverses and all the possible dimensions. You have a right to disagree with this as long as you are not initiating 7 deadly sins.
• Objective morality consists of two principles. 1) non-aggression principle: Do not initiate harm on other sentient beings. 2) self-defense principle: You have a right to defend yourself with anything at disposal. Force is either violence or self defense. Violence is initiation of harm. Self defense is reaction to violence. Don't confuse violence with self defense. Who initiates force matters.
• This objective morality has been largely suppressed by bad people in power for tens of thousands of years because bad people cannot keep doing bad things if people aren't confused about the objective difference between right and wrong. If 99.9% of people don't understand right and wrong, you can give evil orders to order followers, and people will not even know who are the bad guys. I see that most privacy enthusiasts advocate objectively bad things because they don't come from the place of understanding objective morality.
• Bad people in power subverted all organized cultural religions a long time ago and erased objective morality from these religions. Christian bible may have some disorganized references to morality, but it doesn't formally teach morality in any coherent way. I have just taught you objective morality very quickly. Objective morality is very simple, but unpacking the full implications can take a long time.
• The law of freedom states that collective freedom is directly proportionate to collective morality. That's why the human rulers on earth had to suppress objective morality for tens of thousands of years. Once people become objectively moral, it's game over for bad people. Bad people can't control free moral people. Immoral people cannot be free. That means even the rulers at the top aren't really free from each other.
  • Lower animals may not understand morality, but they are still bound to the law of freedom. Humans raise animals in tightly packed animal farms and kill them for meat. Animals aren't free from each other, and they aren't free from humans. Humans treat each other badly. Because humans already treat each other badly, they don't care too much about animals, either. When humans kill each other just because they got orders from order givers, why should they care about animal lives?
  • Here, we can see that freedom is basically freedom from violence. Collective freedom is how sentient beings are collectively free from violence.

[Staff 10087]

52 minutes ago, space5 said:

I have just taught you objective morality very quickly. Objective morality is very simple

Hello!

Yes, attempts to show that "objective morality" exist are around since the time of Plato (at least) but they have never succeeded. Securing the possibility of objective knowledge in morality has been the dream of several Giants of Philosophy throughout human history, but nobody so far succeeded. Nowadays scientific analysis tend to show the contrary, i.e. that there's no such thing as an objective morality. Then, even if objective morality existed, comes the huge problem to define it and to interpret the definition. Your definition for example is not universally accepted, therefore there are serious doubts that this "objectivity" exists indeed. And even by accepting your definition many actions remain moral for some people and immoral for other people, according to the interpretation of your definition (we will not insult your intelligence to make trivial examples).

Anyway, all of your considerations don't change the observation that your statement according to which privacy would be "a form of luxury" for financially wealthy people is false, perhaps even according to your own definition of morality!
 

52 minutes ago, space5 said:

I quit porn, game, entertainment, social media, fast foods, exciting music, and all other forms of easy dopamine triggers. I am a modern monk who doesn't need a monastery to stay disciplined.

This can be an honorable and moral behavior indeed, but we don't see how this personal choice should support the idea that privacy is the luxury of wealthy people.

Kind regards
 

[space5 3]

13 hours ago, Staff said:

Your definition for example is not universally accepted, therefore there are serious doubts that this "objectivity" exists indeed.

The idea that there is no truth or you can't find truth is called solipsism. Gravity doesn't just cease to exist just because you don't know about it or don't believe in it. Objective morality is the same.
There is objective truth about right and wrong. Most people are overwhelmed by religions and trillion tons of bullshit and prematurely conclude that it's impossible to figure out objective morality.
Actual objective morality has been passed down over millenia through various occult traditions like hermeticism. I'm pretty sure that you can't deny that 7 deadly sins are objectively wrong. Nobody can argue that harm is subjective or relative when they are constantly hit with a nunchuck by a random guy in a subway station.

People used to believe earth was flat, but that doesn't mean earth was actually flat. Concensus is tangential to truth. Earth is flat = Objective morality doesn't exist, or it's impossible to figure it out.

Your argument is that because isaac newton hasn't discovered gravity yet and there is no scientific concensus on a singular definition of objective gravity, objective gravity doesn't exist. Gravity has always objectively existed since the beginning of the physical universe. "Objective" morality is the same by definition. Anything objective must have been true since the beginning of the universe.

You can believe that it's impossible to figure out the objective moral foundation, but a small fraction of earth population preserved objective morality from the beginning of humanity through occult(hidden) traditions because the human rulers used to be power maniacs who cracked down hard on anything that threatens their control. It's not that difficult to figure out why objective morality had to be preserved through occult traditions in hidden corners. In the past long gone, people who taught objective morality were tortured for a very long time and then murdered. Albigensian Crusade of 13th century is one such example. Jesus christ was murdered by soldiers mainly because he taught objective morality and criticized money and government very hard non-stop. Jesus christ was a very caustic moral anarchist. Those who call themselves christians are the opposite of jesus christ. The vast majority of christians worship money and government. They advocate various government authoritarian policies including mask mandate and vaccine mandate. The occult traditions preserved the core teachings(objective morality) of jesus christ. The council of nicaea was overseen by roman emperor who sought to subvert christianity. Council of nicaea determined what went into christian bible.

Unless someone can come up with a better explanation, I have no good reason to believe objective morality is anything other than what I just described. If you assume that this is really the essense the human rulers were trying to bury, it's not that difficult to figure out that they would bury truth under trillion tons of bullshit that has nothing to do with morality. All organized religions were proactively organized by the human rulers in order to bury the truth under trillion tons of garbage.

If the human rulers buried the gem under trillion tons of shit, you obviously will say the gem doesn't exist. Humans are programmable. Garbage in. Garbage out. If you fill human minds with trillion tons of garbage, you will get garbage behaviors. They won't even know what to look for in the first place. Morality? It is bullshit. It is subjective. People who have the most weapons can make up right and wrong on whims!! All you see is mountains of shit. Of course, you are going to say there is only shit and there is no gem.

There are only two possibilities. 1) There is no truth (about morality), or it's impossible to figure out truth (about morality). 2) Truth is singular and knowlable with some effort. People accept that the truth about gravity is singular, and there are no multiple different laws of physics that kick in, depending on human mood. Gravity doesn't suddenly change across time and space. Man-made laws don't change gravity. You can tax people because gravity is too powerful or the sun is too hot(carbon tax), but that doesn't change gravity or the solar activities. Objective morality is a singular truth and doesn't change according to human whims. Human legislation doesn't change objective morality as much as it doesn't change gravity. Objective morality requires the creator as the only lawmaker in the universe. So, if you reject the creator, you are going to reject objective morality as a ground truth as real as gravity.

1) I don't need mainstream concensus to come to my own conclusions. 2) Mainstream concensus is controlled by bad people in power.

I'm not going to base truths on concensus especially when it's controlled by evil power interests.
 

13 hours ago, Staff said:

This can be an honorable and moral behavior indeed, but we don't see how this personal choice should support the idea that privacy is the luxury of wealthy people.

Porn is tangential to morality. Is killing oneself moral or immoral? Suicide is tangential to morality. Morality is about what you do to other people. It's not about what you do to yourself. Not consuming porn is self control.

We obviously have the right to be free from privacy violation and other forms of violence. However, rights aren't the same as end results. Privacy is an end result. Freedom is an end result. The fact that, in the current human condition, you have to work hard for a semblance of priavcy means it was turned into a luxury reserved for those who have time or money to afford it. Because earth humans became power-hungry narcissistic lunatics, freedom became a very expensive luxury that even billionaires can't buy. If you become a trillionaire, you may buy it? I don't know. Everybody has a right to be free from physical violence, but that doesn't mean physical safety is not a luxury. When you are surrounded by unbalanced mentally ill violent people in new york subway trains, physical safety is a luxury reserved for those who can pay for taxi, private jet, and other kinds of private transport. For poor people stuck in public transport, physical safety is a luxury. In london, physical safety is also a luxury because many migrants are violent criminals who stab little girls to death. UK government locks people up in prison for talking about violent criminal migrants.

Do you know how difficult it is to figure out how to actually be private on the internet if you are not proficient with computers? Most people just know how to browser the internet. I know various privacy techniques that 99.9% of people don't know. I know linux network namespace for preventing VPN leaks. I know how difficult privacy can be. You don't remember what it's like to not be good with computers.

Privacy is a luxury, but you can still afford some of it if you have some time and money. Social safety is becoming the ultimate luxury that even billion dollars may not be able to buy as long as you live in london.

[go558a83nk 368]

4 hours ago, space5 said:

earth humans

Are there humans anywhere else?

[space5 3]

1 hour ago, go558a83nk said:

Are there humans anywhere else?

At least, according to annunaki legend, humans were created through crude genetic engineering by annunaki alien species who came to earth to mine gold and left earth a long time ago. To create humans, they mixed earth hominid genes with annunaki genes, using cheap genetic engineering methods. That explains why humans have many genetic defects. They didn't create humans with precise genetic engineering methods because humans were designed as a tool to mine gold for annunaki aliens. That also explains why humans spent a lot of effort in mining gold and processing it into gold bars even though they were not technologically advanced enough to actually utilize gold. Nowadays, gold is used in computer chips. People didn't have computer chips in the past. There was really no good reason to spend so much effort on producing gold bars if humans didn't have natural use cases like computer chips for gold. Because annunakis didn't want to directly control humans through brute force, they gave the concept of money and government to humans so that they can indirectly control humans through money and government. They spent a lot of effort on perfecting indirect control. After they left, the human controllers who controlled humans for annunakis kept money and government. The legend says they themselves don't use money and government to coordinate their own labor. They give the concept of money and government to slave species.

If annunaki aliens took some humans with them after they were done with humans on earth, there must be humans on other planets.

But, whether annunaki legend is real doesn't really matter at this point. I don't really care either way. What matters is the fact that I'm stuck with money and government on earth along with other earth humans. I'm still practical and try to be productive with money, but I am aware that money is a control mechanism.

[fsy 36]

9 hours ago, space5 said:

many migrants are violent criminals who stab little girls to death

And there oozes creeping racism from these conspiracy-loving, self disciplined monk educators with the will to avoid porn but not to study seriously the matters they talk about. So typical.
 

3 hours ago, space5 said:

the concept of money and government to slave species.

 

Quote

focus on becoming rich

 

Quote

my policy is to become rich first

This self proclaimed monk-educator claims a thing and the contrary of it in different messages to pollute forums. Racist monk troll alert! 😸

[xmartymcflyx 6]

10 hours ago, space5 said:

a small fraction of earth population preserved objective morality from the beginning of humanity through occult(hidden) traditions because the human rulers used to be power maniacs who cracked down hard on anything that threatens their control. It's not that difficult to figure out why objective morality had to be preserved through occult traditions in hidden corners.

What are you talking about? do you know the golden rule exists in almost every religion on the earth and has thousands of years?
If you want to "teach" about being "moral" in the sense of being a good person, you can simply teach the golden rule because this is something even a kid understands and can practice, while your theory on objective morality is probably only understood by yourself and cannot be practically taught.
 

10 hours ago, space5 said:

Jesus christ was murdered by soldiers mainly because he taught objective morality and criticized money and government very hard non-stop.

Are you talking about the historical Christ or the mystical Christ? because the historical one didn't do this, and the mystical one's actions and words cannot be interpreted literally.
 

10 hours ago, space5 said:

Privacy is a luxury, but you can still afford some of it if you have some time and money

You can use TOR/I2P which are free and have privacy. You can read books in your local library and not do a google search and by doing that have privacy. You can go to your doctor's office and not have a conversation through WhatsApp and keep your medical condition private.
Privacy in the world of computers might be hard to achieve, but many people collaborate to make privacy reach more people (either by educating, by hosting a tor node, etc.). 
It might sound like luxury in a country where you have most of the people living in poverty, in other countries it is not. 
In some countries it might be a requirement to have an online life, as the networks are controlled by a totalitarian government.
In other countries it might be completely ignored, as you won't have the police knocking at your door because of a social media post no matter how "offensive" it might be to a group of people.
In other words, luxury is relative, privacy is not.