18 ms·
If you take the text at face value, he's making a pretty modest proposal: (1) The current velocity of disinformation is high -> (2) this leads to socially harm
by ethbro 6y ago
If you take the text at face value, he's making a pretty modest proposal:
(1) The current velocity of disinformation is high -> (2) this leads to socially harmful outcomes -> (3) providing P2P encryption in turnkey form via social network apps isn't a good idea.
I don't see the suggestions of panopticon you do. I see someone saying 'Most people on social media platforms aren't responsible, thoughtful enough media consumers to earn a right to encryption.'
Personally? I think it's a perspective worth considering. {Low-effort P2P encryption + low-effort forwarding} is a fundamentally different social value proposition than {Medium-effort P2P encryption + medium-effort forwarding}.
- luckylion 6y ago> I think it's a perspective worth considering. {Low-effort P2P encryption + low-effort forwarding} is a fundamentally different social value proposition than {Medium-effort P2P encryption + medium-effort forwarding}. How can that be achieved short of outlawing all encryption, heavily enforcing it and then allowing encryption "for the good guys"? If you outlaw encryption on FB or WhatsApp, even if you somehow get Telegram on board ... if people care about encryption (which I doubt, but let's pretend), somebody will provide a low-effort solution and you can't really stop it.
- ethbro 6y agoI'd hazard to say most people outside of tech (in free speech countries) don't care about encryption as a key feature.