3 ms·
These are post-facto justifications that are not sound because the same concerns don't hold for other mediums. You can write shit you would regret later in emai
by kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
These are post-facto justifications that are not sound because the same concerns don't hold for other mediums. You can write shit you would regret later in emails too.
And privacy should NOT be about just protecting you from shit that you might regret.
- kazinator 9y agoSuppose that instead of using e-mail or instant messaging you use BSD ntalk, where every keystroke you type is immediately seen by the other party; they can see you backspacing over everything, fixing typos, rewording. You are saying that you will not say less shit in ntalk than in an e-mail?
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y agoIt's not a question of what medium will make me more likely to say shit. It's a question of whether my choice of that medium should be, de facto, considered incriminating. It's a question of whether a company can ask its employees to use ephemeral mediums to communicate. See, if we get down to brass tacks, I personally would be willing to put my money on Uber being guilty as sin. But that doesn't mean that I think a company should not be allowed to ask employees to prefer a confidential or ephemeral medium of communication.