3 ms·
Sure. Basically, it all comes down to whether or not you trust the government to be good, always. If you believe this is the case, you're fine. If you don't,
by big_chungus 7y ago
Sure. Basically, it all comes down to whether or not you trust the government to be good, always. If you believe this is the case, you're fine. If you don't, you will probably prefer un-censorable technologies. America has (historically) tended to fall pretty far to the "free speech" side of the line, though there is a push to change that.
Even if you trust the American government, people in repressive regimes can still make use of this. This could enable a western news outlet to make itself accessible to those who are brainwashed by state media.
Trying to prevent "hate groups" from congregating or criminals from opening marketplaces doesn't usually work, either. It's the prohibition principle: if you ban the tech, criminals will use it, but an American NGO won't be able to reach those with censored internet.
You may not use it, but I don't see why your "being on board with it" ought to affect what others create.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoEven if you have "free speech" you could still end up on some form of subversive persons list. We're not far from McCarthy 2.0.
- filoleg 7y ago>Even if you trust the American government, people in repressive regimes can still make use of this. I think an important point to make is that just because you trust the American government now, doesn't mean that this won't change in the future. Which is why the core tenets of free speech and privacy should be protected at all costs.