3 ms·
They could, you know, just ignore it and get on with life. There’s no reason to defend itself against every claim made on the Internet but any yahoo. Instead,
by TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
They could, you know, just ignore it and get on with life. There’s no reason to defend itself against every claim made on the Internet but any yahoo.
Instead, they are choosing to aggressively silence the author. That raises eyebrows.
- woodruffw 5y ago> Instead, they are choosing to aggressively silence the author. That raises eyebrows. Somewhere along the road, we've gone and conflated "someone sends you a scary letter" with "I'm being silenced." The author is clearly anonymous and apparently (correctly) scoffs at the letter, so it feels like a distortion to call this "aggressive silenc[ing]."
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago“Attempting to aggressively silence.” What do you think will happen once they get his personal info? Do you think they’ll invite him to dinner and try to persuade him over a bottle of wine to change his article?
- woodruffw 5y agoI assume they'll seek the most favorable recourse permitted to them by courts of law, which is precisely how it's supposed to work. Where's the problem? (Of course, this is all very abstract. The person who runs this site claims to live in Ukraine, so there is probably no meaningful legal recourse available to ProtonMail. Which brings us back to "aggressively silence" being a grand overstatement.)
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago> Where's the problem? Taking issue with the article in the first place.
- woodruffw 5y agoBut the “article” (it’s a blog post) contains material falsehoods. Unless there’s some philosophical divide that I’m missing here, there seems to be something fundamentally very reasonable about the legal threat here.