Gregory's Server@jgilbert while of course horrific, is it not more "the law required facebook to give..." ?
|
12 comments
 @anderseknert @jgilbert point is: blame the legislation, don't single out facebook as if they're acting out of anything other than being legally required to do so... @patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert No one's singled out here — something Facebook did was the topic of the post, which is why the discussion is likely to revolve around them. It is perfectly OK to blame both them and legislation. They might not have a choice to change legislation, but they do have a choice to make this type of request possible in the first place. @anderseknert @patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert 1. Tell the locality, Nebraska in this case, we will not allow users in this state And so much more. @anderseknert @patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert Absolutely! There used to be groups fighting for this. I want to say Fight For The Future. I lost my contact for them though Here they are @anderseknert @patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert Here's a great poster for sale! https://shop.fightforthefuture.org/products/defender-abortion-poster @patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert Facebook had repeatedly chosen to profit from user data rather than protect them - or else they would be using end to end encryption.  @patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert The law required Facebook to do something abhorrent. Facebook did it. *Facebook* did it. We have a pretty good idea of how decisions are made there. They knew this would look bad for them publicly. But they figured the damage would be less than not complying. They ran the numbers and decided it would cost them more to fight the warrant than it would in lost users. Let's prove them wrong. |
@patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert that only works if Facebook can read her DMs in the first place, which is a choice they’ve made.