Gregory's Server@structed @ethanschoonover wow. There is probably some conversation to be had on the intersection between privacy and enabling horrifying human behaviour, but this article is all kinds of not it.
|
3 comments
@structed @ethanschoonover what stood out to me is that using signal is "subscribing to an ideology" that has some potential downsides, but somehow using FAANG-type messenger is not? I can see way more, and much clearer downsides of "big tech" than the nebulous potential downsides of signal, but ok. @structed @ethanschoonover also, I say this as someone who is explicitly not a fan of signal, because I believe it is a mistake to allow a single entity to dictate how we message/contact people, even if signal is still doing a lot of things right. But none of the interesting and complicated ethical questions are asked, let alone attempted to be answered in that crappy excuse for an article. |
@mvgorcum @ethanschoonover yes, absolutely ridiculous.
Too many things that are absurd in this article, but this stands out: While I agree that one needs to have a certain faith in goodwill, specifically of the state and there is a need for law enforcement to be able to investigate crimes, it's not like we can't have any privacy in our communications because of it.
That's just the most absurd piece in that article.