RT @[email protected]

Late contender for worst take of the year: NYT oped argues @[email protected] is bad because users might not know it strongly protects comms from surveillance. I, for one, am a “witting” advocate user.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/opinion/jack-dorseys-twitter-signal-privacy.html

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/kurtopsahl/status/1608187446151512065

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
While the argument that privacy is a dodgy ideology is obviously ridiculous, @[email protected] (and Tor) are far from being ideologically neutral having decided that the donated time and funds they receive to futher enable privacy, was not intended to allow Chinese to have it.
If US based groups that receive US government funding for what they claim is a global fight for privacy and anti-censorship, shrug and declare 1.4b of the neediest users on the planet "out of scope" for over a decade, ideological neutrality is no longer something they can claim.
When Chinese decided to protest a few weeks ago, there was no functional secure comms solution we could rely on to do so safely. That was a choice. Moxie knew years ago and was ok with it. The ideology that Chinese people and our lives don't matter isn't new or novel- or neutral.
Saying @[email protected] is ideologically neutral because of the good work they do is like saying the Salvation Army is ideologically neutral. The ideology can be clearly seen in who they refuse to serve, and your support supports that ideology.
Naomi Wu 机械妖姬 on Twitter

“Every time🙄”

Twitter