> You seem to be lumping speech restrictions and privacy violations into the same bucket, but I see them as very different, often even opposed to each other. A

> You seem to be lumping speech restrictions and privacy violations into the same bucket, but I see them as very different, often even opposed to each other. And yet today there was an article in the front page claiming that Signal is a problem because its end to end encryption can be used by anyone, even "bad actors", to communicate. That's an attack on both privacy and free speech, and I wouldn't be shocked if GP had that article (and others like it) in mind. Mind you, most of the comments here rightfully called that article out for the absurd fear-mongering it was, and even the increasingly common censorship apologists were unusually silent. I was pleasantly surprised, even if it did still get a lot of upvotes and reached the front page.