Mastodawn

The New York Times comes out against encrypted apps like Signal using the classic arguments of terrorism and CSAM but puts their unique anti-tech spin on it by arguing

"Small groups of technologists are developing and deploying applications of their technologies for explicitly ideological reasons, with those ideologies baked into the technologies. To use those technologies is to use a tool that comes with an ethical or political bent."

This has always been the case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/opinion/jack-dorseys-twitter-signal-privacy.html

Opinion | Jack Dorsey and the Dangers of Privacy At All Costs

The debate about dilemmas posed by the text messaging system.

The New York Times

Dare Obasanjo Dec 28, 2022

Using Open Source or Free Software is using a tool that comes with an ethical or political bent.

Using commercial software is also doing the same except that since what you are supporting is capitalism, it's like a fish that doesn't understand the concept of being in water. We don't even notice it.

Boud Dec 28, 2022

Software satisfying the Open Source [1] or Free Software [2] definition *is* necessarily commercial software. You can legally sell it. If you can't legally sell it, then it's not #FOSS.

Google+Facebook (2 parts of #GAFAM) run huge commercial businesses mostly running on FOSS. Even the #AGPLv3 is compatible with capitalism.

The opposing word that is needed here is *proprietary* software [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software

The Free Software Definition - Wikipedia

Barak Ollama, Esq.Dec 29, 2022

@boud @carnage4life

Also commerce and capitalism aren't the same thing to everyone.

Dragon-sided D Dec 31, 2022

@boud @carnage4life Hear, hear! It saddens and alarms me that the word "capitalism" has come to mean "corporatism", and that the word no is longer immediately tied to the concept of "freedom"... yet, the concepts *are* intrinsic and *must* be understood as two parts of the same human dignity.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=5n3h3_u6yOc

The Philosophy of Liberty

When you hear Ron Paul say that he stands for the Philosophy of Liberty, this is what he means. The philosophy of liberty is based on self-ownership. This simple but elegant and hard-hitting animation will explain exactly what that means. It's a great tool anyone can use to educate children and adults about our right to life, liberty, and the property we create - and our responsibility to think, speak and act. A DVD version of this video can be downloaded for free at: www.philosophyofliberty.blogspot.com CREDITS AUTHOR: Ken Schoolland [email protected] PRODUCER: Kerry Pearson (aka Lux Lucre) MUSIC: Music2Hues www.music2hues.com WEBSITE: www.jonathangullible.com SUPPORT: The Jonathan Gullible fund www.isil.org/tools/jonathan- gullible.html COPYRIGHT: www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd- nc/1.0/

PhilosophyOfLiberty | Invidious

Boud Dec 31, 2022

@dragonsidedd Just to clarify that even though FOSS licences *are* commercial, in the sense of allowing the sale of software, and give legal permission for their "use in capitalism", I am *not* supporting the suggestion that "capitalism is part of human dignity".

@carnage4life 's original point about the ethics and politics of software seems essentially correct to me; I'm only pointing to the flaw in using the adjective "commercial"; the word "proprietary" would have been clearer.

Alex Nedelcu Dec 29, 2022

@carnage4life I'd phrase it differently.

Due to the proliferation of subscriptions, using commercial software is supporting rent-seeking behavior. Whereas using FOSS is in support of ... private property.

It's the difference b/w renting your house or your car and owning it. Which is an especially apt analogy, because software-enabled cars these days are increasingly no longer the property of their buyers.

Antti Peltola ⁂Dec 30, 2022

@carnage4life Private sector doesn't do good DOS emulators since there's little to no money in it so we had to. This is why most emulators are open source. There just isn't any commercial competition in this area.

Mark Gardner Dec 28, 2022

@carnage4life Luddite copaganda

Pavel A. Samsonov Dec 28, 2022

@mjgardner @carnage4life except the Luddites were workers who were very much aware of what was going to happen to the value of their labor, whereas the NYT is very much not that

Mark Gardner Dec 28, 2022

@PavelASamsonov @carnage4life I’m using the modern conception of the term “Luddite,” because I’m not one

Pavel A. Samsonov Dec 28, 2022

@mjgardner @carnage4life The modern conception that was sanitized by capitalist propaganda? Ok lol

Mark Gardner Dec 28, 2022

@PavelASamsonov @carnage4life …or by neo-Luddites themselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism

Neo-Luddism - Wikipedia

malcriada_lala_Dec 28, 2022

@mjgardner @carnage4life but these people aren't luddites. They love tech when it serves capital and surveillance.

Mark Gardner Dec 28, 2022

@Malcriada @carnage4life One of the prerequisites of free will is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas. It becomes tragic when a person compartmentalizes their mind to keep them. It becomes monstrous when enshrined as a virtue and made policy.

malcriada_lala_Dec 28, 2022

@mjgardner @carnage4life so... we agree that this is more like hypocritical copaganda rather than Luddite copaganda?

Icevice Dec 28, 2022

@carnage4life we should treat NYT opinion with the same revulsion as fox news. Their news articles are often fine, but opinions.. ugh

Justin Maxwell Dec 28, 2022

@carnage4life thank you for reminding me to set up the same nyt content filters here that I had on twitter.

Renee DiResta Dec 28, 2022

@carnage4life FWIW it’s a guest essay not anyone on their editorial board

Dare Obasanjo Dec 28, 2022

@Noupside They choose to publish it. Claiming it wasn’t an employee that wrote it is a convenient dodge that doesn’t absolve them of the decision to publish it or the ideas contained within.

mochaandmuses 😈Dec 28, 2022

@carnage4life You'd think they'd get tired of this take.

Helllooo!!! Just because we want our #security doesn't mean we're doing something nefarious.

This is my normal response to this:

Them: If you're not having something to hide, why are you using this type of security?

Me: Why do you ask about my security? Are you having trouble getting a warrant?

>.>

Kim Crayton ~ Her/She Dec 28, 2022

Fiona Bianchi Dec 28, 2022

@carnage4life this argument has always been garbage because you can apply it to almost anything with the result that everything would be banned or heavily controlled. For example: cars are used as getaway vehicles so no one can have one, despite there being numerous “good” uses. “Baddies can do bad things” is just silly because any ban on E2E messaging won’t bother them and will leave normal peeps conversations open to government and baddies alike (often they are one and the same)

@carnage4life It seems they don't see how their own publications come with a political bent, which is ridiculous.

Sean Dec 28, 2022

@carnage4life That’s the lamest conservative response to technology i’ve ever heard. You’d think they’d have more progressive viewpoints to this issue. Why don’t we just open up all their books and sources for all their stories while we’re at it? #NYTFail

Jason Hartline Dec 29, 2022

@carnage4life This is the opinion section, not the news section of the NYT. Opinions in the opinions section are the opinions of the authors not the NYT.

Vinoth (Datacenter security)Dec 29, 2022

@carnage4life I like the logic "Criminals are using this powerful government-evading technology. As proof, I am offering an incident where FBI got the signal messages it needs to prosecute criminals".