Post #2406660

2023-01-03 17:04 UTC

OK let’s talk about That Op-ed. The one that insisted not only that privacy is dangerous, but that not affirmatively building surveillance into communication tools is a radical ideological position. Dunking on the op-ed’s arguments is easy. They’re SHALLOW. And dunk many have, often with the gentleness of a professor grading a draft essay from a student they didn’t want to completely discourage. I’ll direct you to the great threads from others... 1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230101194846/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/opinion/jack-dorseys-twitter-signal-privacy.html

Replies (3)

@Mer__edith@mastodon.world 2023-01-03 17:04

But what’s going on here isn’t substance. And that’s what I want to focus on. Those of us invested in defending privacy need to understand that this op-ed wasn’t written for people with expertise, and its purpose won’t be perturbed by expert rebuttal. We’re not the audience. 2/

Open ##2876693
@jersan@www.superstork.org 2023-01-03 17:48

@Mer__edith@mastodon.world 100%. this opinion piece by nytimes is nothing but weaponized #FUD technology like signal threatens incumbent #power holders, and that is why an opinion piece like this exists at all.

Open ##2876805
@maniajack@mastodon.world 2023-01-03 18:14

@Mer__edith@mastodon.world What are your thoughts on Jan 6 conspirators or Trump administration using Signal? What if Nixon had been using Signal? The FBI got the messages somehow but Signal instead prevented any evidence discovery. I generally disagree with the article's points but think most responses are shallow too. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/feds-say-they-used-encrypted-messages-to-charge-oath-keepers-leader.html

Open ##2876812