3 ms·

Yeah, the beginning really misses the mark. But two of the things you didn't like I think are actually very reasonable. > "...totally normal cyberspace activit

Yeah, the beginning really misses the mark. But two of the things you didn't like I think are actually very reasonable. > "...totally normal cyberspace activities—things like hacking into computers and circulating stolen source code." > Even if entirely true, I have a sneaking suspicion that the people in question could add details that made it sound a bit less nefarious. No, I think this is fair. The EFF has always been a huge advocate for watering down the CFAA. That's actually one of the main reasons I've donated to EFF in the past. And FWIW I think this is a tactical error on the part of Yasha Levine. The constituency most likely to be swayed by her message is going to be turned off by this sort of tough-on-crime, throw-everyone-in-jail BS. This piece would be 1000% more likely to resonate with its target audience if it started by acknowledging all of the good work that the EFF does, and then went on to ask why the EFF hasn't taken a stronger stance on some of the private sector abuses of some of its core values (such as digital privacy). > So, the ACLU defends companies that traditional EFF supporters sometimes dislike? Is this supposed to be news? I think the point the author is trying to make is that there's a precedent for civil rights advocacy organizations being co-opted by corporate interests. Which is actually a reasonable thing to point out.

kbenson 8y ago
> This piece would be 1000% more likely to resonate with its target audience if it started by acknowledging all of the good work that the EFF does, and then went on to ask why the EFF hasn't taken a stronger stance on some of the private sector abuses of some of its core values (such as digital privacy). I agree it would resonate more, but I think that would be counterproductive to the goal, as it would promote critical thinking about the topic. to me, nothing about this article seems to indicate that want to promote critical thinking or a nuanced opinion of the EFF. It's all about driving a specific point home, slowly, and with extreme bias, which is that the EFF is all about supporting a specific corporate agenda instead of a set of principles. > I think the point the author is trying to make is that there's a precedent for civil rights advocacy organizations being co-opted by corporate interests. Which is actually a reasonable thing to point out. And it chose to make that point by insinuating the ACLU was co-opted by big tobacco and the NRA, simply because it weighed in on cases in their favor. What I was trying to get at, is they very much have a reputation of a "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" stance, which fits perfectly well with the actions in question, at least in the detail presented. If there actually is a precedent as you say, then it should be pointed out, but with actual details, not innuendo. This article insinuates quite a bit, while saying almost nothing.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > This article insinuates quite a bit, while saying almost nothing. That's certainly a valid criticism.

kbenson 8y ago

> This piece would be 1000% more likely to resonate with its target audience if it started by acknowledging all of the good work that the EFF does, and then went on to ask why the EFF hasn't taken a stronger stance on some of the private sector abuses of some of its core values (such as digital privacy). I agree it would resonate more, but I think that would be counterproductive to the goal, as it would promote critical thinking about the topic. to me, nothing about this article seems to indicate that want to promote critical thinking or a nuanced opinion of the EFF. It's all about driving a specific point home, slowly, and with extreme bias, which is that the EFF is all about supporting a specific corporate agenda instead of a set of principles. > I think the point the author is trying to make is that there's a precedent for civil rights advocacy organizations being co-opted by corporate interests. Which is actually a reasonable thing to point out. And it chose to make that point by insinuating the ACLU was co-opted by big tobacco and the NRA, simply because it weighed in on cases in their favor. What I was trying to get at, is they very much have a reputation of a "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" stance, which fits perfectly well with the actions in question, at least in the detail presented. If there actually is a precedent as you say, then it should be pointed out, but with actual details, not innuendo. This article insinuates quite a bit, while saying almost nothing.

throwawayjava 8y ago
> This article insinuates quite a bit, while saying almost nothing. That's certainly a valid criticism.