A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.44K Posts
- 57.3K Comments
- Modlog
Seeing as this was posted in c/privacy, I believe the intent was rather to say “actually that whole ‘nothing to hide nothing to fear’ premise government espionage programs enjoy thrusting on their citizens is patently bullshit, and they know it, as despite saying it to you while spying on you they make it illegal to spy on them.”
Using paranoia to justify a logical fallacy - and espionage - isn’t a very good argument.
removed by mod
You’re the only one who mentioned Edward Snowden
removed by mod
I wish I were on the drugs you are to find the reason in the obviously logically flawed and contradictory madness you keep making of this.
But if you need to keep telling yourself that espionage is OK just because some governments engage in some forms of mass surveillance, then I can’t stop you from making a fool of yourself by saying so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I still think that both are bad, and I still find it pretty easy to argue both points without conflating the two logically fallaciously.
Thing is, even if we don’t agree, I think you could do better arguing either or both points without conflating the two. And I think you’d be more convincing, if you didn’t rely on conflating them. That’s what I’m trying to say, is that you’re not really wrong on one point, the other is logically fallacious, but that you’re wrong for trying to say that they’re related.
removed by mod