Kim Dotcom Suffers Stroke (opens in new tab)

There seems to have something with Kim that make them resist the US :)

Probably because of the cultural goods available for free? I watched ton of Japanese animes back in the day that were not published in my country, or when it was very out of price (I bought manga tho, which were cheaper).

I found Mega a good privacy respecting service for keeping backups of my files.

>Okay, my hero lived long enough to become a villain. That's sad, but this happens.

Yep, definitely not the first time. Just look at Scott Adams.

He always was a villain.

"He was arrested in 1994 for trafficking in stolen phone calling card numbers" (wikipedia)

just a fun loving, movie pirating criminal for a while.

> Okay, my hero lived long enough to become a villain. That's sad, but this happens.

Every hero ultimately becomes a villain in the current society, because current society cannot withstand people having different opinions from us.

If we cannot accept different opinions, what's even the point of having heroes ?

> I feel like the people protesting the Vietnam war would be regarded by the current online zeitgeist as “pro-Mao”.

Many of them were extremely strong supporters of Ho Chi Minh (they used to call him the Vietnamese George Washington), the Viet Cong and — yes — even Mao. Mao’s ‘little red book’ was a popular accessory for anti-war protesters of the time.

More akin to WWII.. not vietnam. The US was reluctant to join, and was home to millions who were quite happy with Hitler. [1][2]

"In 1940, a group of Yale University students founded the America First Committee to oppose US intervention in the European war." [1]

"In its various expressions, the pro-Nazi stance during those years was mostly focused not on creating an active military alliance with Germany or bringing the U.S. under Nazi control (something Hitler himself thought wouldn’t be possible) but rather on keeping the U.S. out of war in Europe." [2]

[1] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/ma...

[2] https://time.com/5414055/american-nazi-sympathy-book/

From his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Promotion_of_conspi...

"During the Russo-Ukrainian War, Dotcom has repeatedly spread anti-Ukrainian falsehoods, and Russian government propaganda. Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."

As with all Wikipedia refs, review their sources yourself.

Mao didn't start the war in Vietnam.

Remember when he said he had personal knowledge about Seth Rich, I.e. lying to further a Russian disinformation campaign? I do.

> When you say pro-Putin, do you mean actually pro-Putin or just for ending the war in Ukraine?

Any suggestion to end the war involving Ukraine's capitulation (giving territories, being blocked from joining NATO or other defensive alliances, etc.) is being pro-Putin.

It's quite exhausting to read people like you parroting the "end the war in Ukraine" euphemism to mean "give in to Putin's demands". Chamberlain would be proud...

Yeah...it's pretty hilarious how the American left is now the pro-war side and being against it and not wanting more war after over 2 decades of it means you're a Russian asset.

Is Putin celebrity A or celebrity B here?

isn't this comment very infantilized in and of itself?

That is indeed a problem.

That is not what is happening here with Dotcom though.

Kim Dotcom spreads misinformation and in doing so provides justification for russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine. It’s no different from someone saying about WWII that the Jews had it coming.

https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-pro-russian-falsehoods-...

I can't find much information about the Hague decision. The Reuters article is basically a blurb, and the WSJ is paywalled. To summarize Wikipedia, Guerro - the judge which Chevron immigrated to the US - seems to have exaggerated his testimony; he later walks back much of everything involving Donziger (ghostwriting and bribes). I was hoping that the references to the Hague's decision would have more information.

The problem is that it sort of does. It shouldn't, but laws are fundamentally based around physical locations and no one has really resolved what it means to commit a crime in a different jurisdiction than the one you're physically in. Sure there are extradition treaties, but those are far more malleable and operate at a much higher level, turning what would be a mundane crime into a nation state level concern.

I don't think there's a good solution here. Obviously the police of one country turning up and arresting people in another is a non-starter. The best option is probably just countries agreeing on the same important laws (e.g. it's rare for extradition for murder to be controversial), but copyright infringement is viewed very differently around the world, and the US has rightly struggled to exert its own opinions on this topic on other nation states.

> Being in a different country doesn't give you free reign to commit crime.

"Crime" is something that means different things in different countries. Or rather, what is illegal differs between countries.

I think what parent is trying to call out unfair, is someone getting arrested in one country where something isn't necessarily proven to be illegal, then taken to a different country and prosecuted there, even if you're not actively involved with that country. Things like drug trafficking arrests are made by either the receiving/sending side (either way, local border control and/or anti-narcotics police) of that particular transaction, not by some other party half-way across the globe, because it isn't really their responsibility.

But then I'm sure you can make the argument that because somewhere, somehow, Kim Dotcom touched USD and/or US movie studios so the US has "right" to make whatever he did their business.

It's easy to just declare something "crime" and then claim justification for anything you do to prosecute it, but the strategy is also often a moral sewer of corrupt interests and mendacity.

If you think that the sort of "crime" that Dotcom committed justified all the measures taken against him, especially given the kind of reprehensible corporate interests working behind these measures for their own entirely self serving extremes, then maybe you should more closely examine how you define your morality on crime.

So the US should just be able to make laws for citizens of other countries?

half the things you've said and done on the internet were probably illegal in russia/china/best korea/iran/random shithole.

why should one jurisdiction be above another? what even is the jurisdiction of the internet? sorry, but your answer is just out of touch