I came across a few comments and topics here telling people who strongly advocate for privacy to be more “moderate”, and to “sound less crazy”. People who say that should be ignored and even banned if they persist. Time and time again privacy advocates and skeptics of the “if you don’t have anything to hide you shouldn’t worry” have been proven right, while the other side has been proven wrong. Remember when James Clapper lied in front of congress? I do. Remember when Snowden used to be glorified as long as it served the purpose of the media and some politicians? I do. How do people think of Snowden now? As a traitor, a rat, someone who should be executed.

Privacy is a universal human right, we all deserve to have some. Yet, being welcoming and open to people who are here to set obstacles for us at every step is not only counterproductive but foolish. They clearly don’t care about privacy, and they certainly don’t care if others lose it, so why should we welcome them here and embrace their drivel and gibberish with open arms? They are a detriment to our cause.

My two cents.

  • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
    23·
    4 years ago

    I have a fair idea, and experience of how the privacy community works across every possible part of the spectrum you can imagine. You may have only looked at Reddit and 4chan, but I know a little more people and some more groups. Not bragging.

    The point you are making will never work. It is the same thing as deplatforming QAnon people. Yes they may be silenced, but for how long? They believe in their garbage ideas, and one day their collective conscience and anger will erupt, leading to things like Capitol riots, because, you guessed right, they were banned away. These could be online in the form of mass brigading troll armies, or few trolls spread everywhere.

    Even this platform, Lemmy, is very cautious with balancing ample amount of civilised free speech with keeping trolls away. I like the approach of admins and devs here. Criticism of Lemmy I see on reddit is filled with absolute BULLSHIT reasons.

    You are advocating the idea of starting this chain of events via asking to outright ban people. Their dumb ideas about privacy will get stronger and stronger.

    Case in point, a college friend of mine who believes in compartmentalising by using two different Android devices, but uses Google accounts on them, plays online games with account IDs, is fine with using WhatsApp but refuses to use Signal due to phone number requirement, and such garbage ideas.

    This level of reverse education exists among normie people. And you are telling our communities to ban people. That does not work, mate. That will never work.

    One more example, you got to make that Threema post on my community and Lemmy. Elsewhere, they censored you. Think about it.

    • kitsunekun@lemmy.mlOP
      11·
      4 years ago

      The idea of banning people, to be honest, was a bit of hyperbole.

      I clarified that a bit with this comment:

      Don’t ban people if you don’t want to, that’s fine, but at least be aware of what’s happening and what people really mean when they say that we should be more “moderate” or “sound less crazy”.

      To be fair I agree with you. All I want people to take from this thread is that we need to tread carefully when dealing with the “be more moderate” crowd. I don’t believe, at all, that they have good intentions until demonstrated otherwise.

      If people can leave this thread with that takeaway alone, I will be more than satisfied. The banning and extracurricular activities are more hyperbole than anything else to be honest.

      And yes! Kudos to you for allowing dissenting opinions. Remember when I posted to your Subreddit about why we should be distrustful of Signal? You were the only one who allowed me to say that out loud and look, today, I was validated; but back in the day all I got was a kick in the proverbial mouth and lots of censorship from the mainstream “privacy” subs.

      Cheers my friend.