You must log in or register to comment.
What did she say after Snowden dropped that bomb?
I’m gonna guess a whole lot of flustered backpedaling amounting to not a lot of anything, but I’m willing to be surprised if someone wants to dig up the video.
Just because an interviewer brings up a point doesn’t mean they agree with it.
Thus my skepticism that she had anything useful to say in response.
I don’t think this image shows her being in a position to backpedal from. I see her providing him with a platform to counter some points that were made elsewhere; she has not necessarily taken a position one way or the other.
I meant backpedaling in the journalistic way of ‘Oh you seem to actually know more about what you’re talking about than I do and have a lot to say on the subject, I should, uh, redirect to a different topic where I can catch you out for that sick sound bite’ or whatever. Maybe that’s not what was going on in that interview, Iono, I haven’t seen it.
We’ll be right back after these messages
“The early Internet’s dissociative opportunities actually encouraged me and those of my generation to change our most deeply held opinions, instead of just digging in and defending them when challenged. This ability to reinvent ourselves meant that we never had to close our minds by picking sides, or close ranks out of fear of doing irreparable harm to our reputations. Mistakes that were swiftly punished but swiftly rectified allowed both the community and the “offender” to move on. To me, and to many, this felt like freedom.” ~ Permanent Record, Snowden.
I have “nothing to hide” but I STILL like privacy tyvm. Hence I’ll shit in public with the stall door closed, and not disclose my wank schedule on Facebook
We desperately need a constitutional right to privacy, but I doubt that will happen in my or our country’s lifetime.
Which country? Plenty of countries have at least a nominal right to privacy, but it doesn’t end up meaning much when US companies own your country’s communications platforms.
I’ll let you guess, although you probably only need one guess.
Weird how Edward Snowden is basically a Boddhisatwa and Julian Assange
Could you explain what you mean by that please?
Snowden is very zen and I don’t know what Assange but it’s not zen
Weird how Edward Snowden is basically a Boddhisatwa and Julian Assange
Defining someone a Bodhisattva is complex. Snowden & Assange acted with potential benefit & harm. True Bodhisattvas act from pure compassion & wisdom, embodying equanimity. Their actions offer reflection on truth & consequences.
Where is the harm?
Where is the harm?
Snowden’s disclosures, while aiming for transparency, risked national security, compromised sources, strained relations, & potentially enabled misuse of info. Buddhist principles emphasize avoiding harm & maintaining order, aspects potentially impacted by his actions. A balanced view acknowledges both benefit & risk.
Maintaining order in this context would mean letting some people harm other people’s privacy though.
Maintaining order in this context would mean letting some people harm other people’s privacy though.
You’re right to question “order” at the expense of privacy. Buddhist principles highlight interdependence & ethical action. Security shouldn’t erode fundamental rights. Privacy & security are interconnected, not opposing forces.
termights replies to you make me agree with your original statement. any harm was to things that are themselves overall harmful. Now that I look at it, it feels like between what we saw with snowden and schwartz it was 2013 when I really realized things are really really messed up.
Exposing truth can often get people killed, especially if the liars are in the government, want to kill witnesses or rats, or at least make their lives hell for betraying the state. Depending on the severity, livelihoods are often at stake. That’s why very few people engage in whistleblowing. They’re aware that it will not get better for them.
Self harm then? I think it’s not only fine but also heroic.
Retaliation for exposing the truth, likely to never speak the full truth again.
Don’t post screenshots of text
I really hope that, within my lifetime, the CIA, FBI and any other state spy apparatus will be correctly seen as the evil, irredeemable orgs they are.
Capitalism’s Invisible Army often acts as the propaganda arm of the US hegemony, so it is in a very real sense a part of their job to make sure this doesn’t come to pass. Sadly they seem pretty good at it.
I also have plenty to hide (crimes)
Fuck me, the last part hit me HARD. I won’t get into the details why because it is painful for me to talk about it.
The answer to that Reddit post is to delete your account on Reddit.
One of the things I warn people about privacy is that it’s not about what they might find, it’s about what they might pretend to find.
Plenty of dirty cops plant evidence. Who’s to say they don’t like someone and keep a flash drive full of Cheese Pizza to plant on their computer. Usually that kind of logic gets people on board more easily.
The fediverse condemns free speech. The fediverse bans unapproved opinions and wrong think, proving that the fediverse is an enemy to the principals of Edward Snowden. But it’s fun to be on here one in awhile knowing fhe right thing to say that forces people to come undone and expose their true personality. When you through a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that helps is the one you hit, so it makes for a fun time to say the right thing for setting off everybody and watxh in the insults come in, it means that I hit my mark
If you don’t like the way communities are being moderated, maybe you should find/start a server that more aligns with your values.
The fediverse imposes censorship through de-federation, as opposed to being decentralized that only requires protocol configuration with any software designed to communicate through said protocols. Fediverse requires approval before accepting messages from other servers
Wait, so people can choose whether or not they’re subjected to hate speech? What tyranny!
Removed by mod
The idea is that people can block what they don’t want to see. Some users/communities/instances are more open, and others are more closed off. There’s nothing stopping you from finding a place that aligns with what you want
If someone doesn’t want to interact with you, you’re not going to accomplish anything by forcing them to interact with you.
I’m all for individual users block who they want. In fact I emcourage it so users onlyvsee what they want. But when server admins defederate and divide the service into sections, users have no say anymore and will have to user mutiple accounts simultaneously across different servers to check posts. The line about telling people to start their own server is a cop out to avoid tue fractoring and censorship, but then to try to promote fediverse as an alternative to th bg names, that’s all a lie and a conjob when severs run by infants block users talking to adults who do not react emotionally to reading words on a screen. In stead, the fediverse seems to be only for people who have identical opinions on every subject and every contrary view gets dogpiled in an attempt to beat into submittiom.
I can say something about people who live a certain lifestyle and have my account deleted. Others can say the exact opposite as me and they get praise and posting gets promoted. It makes the fediverse look like a cult of freakshows who are terrrified to go out to public places and debate people in the street, but come on here to escape humans who don’t agree where everybody conforms to a specific view and everything else is deleted or banned. Given the way fediverse people complain about Twitter, a pattern emerges that their complaints is the fact the Twitter allows opinions that they can’t tolerate so they stay in fediverse where they are protected from reading words. Those people will never achieve much for jobs or careers where co-workers can express offensive or insulting views and the company can’t do anything because they can’t fire someone for an opinion, so they will have to wok with people who don’t support their views or reject their beliefs. How will people on here ever handle having children when their own kids can grow up to reject their views but have to maintain a close relationship despite their child’s disapproval of what they believe?
The fediverse is a bunch of websites that talk to each other with the same protocol. If you’ve been banned from one, you can still talk on all the others. If you are banned on your home instance I am pretty sure you can still post on all the others.
deleted by creator
Find one single instance where users are free to reject or critcize religion, reject trans people, criticize conservatives, and criticize leftists, all on a single instance.
People just don’t want to be around a bigot. Simple as. Social harms that might come to you for espousing views that aren’t acceptable to the surrounding community isn’t censorship, it’s just social rejection on legitimate grounds. Fix your heart or GTFO.
If that were true, speaking with strangers in public places would not contradict fediverse postings. It seems that being outside talking with strangers face to face closers aligns, but not identical, to what’s on Twitter than every single fediverse service. If you can’t be friends with someone who doesn’t accept what you believe but has other interests away from the internet, not being online, that is lack of intellectual curiosity. Someone, I’m not suggesting you, who can’t spend an afternoon with people without checking phone for new messages lives in misery 10 out of 10 times.
Here’s a scientific dissertation on how and why that phrase sucks: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
It’s so easy to use but very hard to fights against. Worst case of bullshit.
Nah the NSA are nazis
Snowden is a brave guy in some ways, but even in spite of his leaks, he’s remained a naive US-supremacist libertarian, who evangangelizes tech over political action, defends the OTF, silicon valley, and US-DoD funded crypto tools and privacy apps.
The lesson of 2013 is not that the NSA is evil. It’s that the path is dangerous. The network path is something that we need to help users get across safely. Our job as technologists, our job as engineers, our job as anybody who cares about the internet in any way, who has any kind of personal or commercial involvement is literally to armor the user, to protect the user and to make it that they can get from one end of the path to the other safely without interference,” he told an auditorium filled with the world’s foremost computer and network engineers at a 2015 meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force in Prague. He reaffirmed his view a year later at Fusion’s 2016 Real Future Fair in Oakland, California. “If you want to build a better future, you’re going to have to do it yourself. Politics will take us only so far and if history is any guide, they are the least reliable means of achieving the effective change.… They’re not gonna jump up and protect your rights,” he said. “Technology works differently than law. Technology knows no jurisdiction.”
Once a fed, always a fed…
Yeah famously no nazis were ever nice to their friends and families (“good people”) while doing bad things for what they thought were good reasons. Like… Snowden, bro, what the fuck are you talking about
Well he worked there, so he might know.
