←back to thread

88 points snvzz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.258s | 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. BLKNSLVR ◴[] No.41910989[source]
Aware that I'm reacting to someone playing devil's advocate...

> private face-to-face conversations do not allow for effective coordination of actions across large distances. <snip> this kind of messaging and a conversation are not the same thing.

Technology allows it. The same way it allows for myriad other applications that technology has made possible via extension of a base capability. I would argue that the technological ability extend 'topic X' makes it close enough to "the same thing".

If a Government has a problem with an app because it allows private conversation between physically distant individuals, then that Government likely also has a problem with private conversations between non-physically distant individuals. They just won't mention that because it's transparently obviously authoritarian.

The 'technology' angle only has political play because there will always be a core contingent of society that is scared enough of technology to have a much louder voice than their numbers would indicate.