←back to thread

89 points snvzz | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
VariousPrograms ◴[] No.41910406[source]
It's silly how privacy detractors try to associate so-and-so terrible group with any software that simply lets people talk without corporate or government surveillance, as if the concept of a private conversation is a strange and suspicious thing now.
replies(2): >>41910699 #>>41911421 #
AlexandrB ◴[] No.41910699[source]
To play devil's advocate: private face-to-face conversations do not allow for effective coordination of actions across large distances. There are plenty of good arguments for keeping the government out of everyone's private messages, but this kind of messaging and a conversation are not the same thing.
replies(3): >>41910922 #>>41910989 #>>41911179 #
1. big-green-man ◴[] No.41910922[source]
Yes, they do, it just takes longer to enact what was coordinated.

There's no fundamental difference between a conversation in a meadow and one online.

replies(3): >>41910969 #>>41911404 #>>41911570 #
2. jgwil2 ◴[] No.41910969[source]
Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own. The difference is in the number of people who can be involved and the distances that can be conquered, but those differences completely change the possibilities of online speech.
3. janderland ◴[] No.41911404[source]
This is not true. We’ve all observed how differently people behave online. The anonymity aspect creates different social outcomes.

While there are arguments for preserving encryption, acting like online communication is the same as face to face is disingenuous.

4. croes ◴[] No.41911570[source]
Then where is the problem? Let‘s get rid of the online tools and go back to the meadows.