4 ms·
> requiring some users to provide government identification, building such weak security that anyone can read and archive private messages, and not stripping ou
by wiremine 6y ago
> requiring some users to provide government identification, building such weak security that anyone can read and archive private messages, and not stripping out damaging meta-data from media posts are three ways to not provide privacy.
Exactly. They weren't really interested in true privacy or free speech, they were just using those keywords to attract customers.
- molbioguy 6y agoThis is misleading. The ID requirements were there to provide a 'verified' account status similar to Twitter's blue check mark. It wasn't some arbitrary requirement. I bet Twitter requires this as well for the verified status.
- germinalphrase 6y agoCould you post without providing that ID?
- molbioguy 6y agoTo the best of my knowledge, yes.
- lallysingh 6y agoThey shouldn't have had verified status.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y agoCouldn’t they have done both? A verified status for the same reasons Twitter does, and properly handled the information. It should have been a verified account once and complete destruction of the submitted data. It obviously should never have been kept indefinitely and unencrypted.
- lallysingh 6y agoIf they could properly handle the data, they would have.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y agoAgreed, but to the last point, if anyone is trying to make the comparison that Twitter is a free speech platform they are a complete lunatic.
- ashtonkem 6y agoTheir supposed free speech absolutism was just PR puffery. They absolutely banned political accounts.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]