Aren't these more or less the arguments used to justify anti-cryptography legislation? And when articles about banning encryption come up on here, people say p

Aren't these more or less the arguments used to justify anti-cryptography legislation? And when articles about banning encryption come up on here, people say pretty much the same thing: "Don't let the worries about its usage by 'bad' people overshadow the good". In fact I believe this tool is even more worrisome, because there are a very large number of non-tech savvy people who express their dissonant opinions simply under the mask imparted by internet anonymity. I imagine most everyone here on HN have at least once made an anonymous account to post a comment somewhere that they would rather not have tied to their identity. This is an avenue that is necessary for the preservation of free speech. Remember that things like treating black people as equals, giving women the right to vote, gay rights, etc were and in some ways still are taboo subjects that bring the wrath and ire of the power du jure. All that said, I still don't see any reason why such a tool shouldn't be released. Why? Even though I believe the tool to be harmful, it's better to know that it exists, know its capabilities, and most importantly know how it works. It'll end up in the hands of the wrong people anyway, so it's better to at least get it into the hands of the right people who can possible do something to combat it.