5 ms·

I totally agree that he didn't have many options. A consequence of him choosing to be under the protection of an adversary of my country is that his opinions a

by Smeevy 2y ago

I totally agree that he didn't have many options. A consequence of him choosing to be under the protection of an adversary of my country is that his opinions about my country carry much less weight with me now.

fooker 2y ago
But it is not an opinion about your country, unless you think there's significant symbiosis between OpenAI and the US government, proving his point.
- Smeevy 2y ago
  Quite the opposite. He's saying that OpenAI is a tool of the American surveillance state. I don't even really disagree with that. Edward Snowden saying it while under the protection of the Russian government makes me look for ulterior motives. That's how we're supposed to treat disinformation, isn't it?
  - fooker 2y ago
    If you don't disagree with that, what do you disagree wih here? Of course criticizing the US is the ulterior motive here, doesn't make the criticism false.
    - Smeevy 2y ago
      I disagree with the idea that I'm supposed to take Snowden seriously when he is in a compromised and dangerous position. It undermines his integrity, which he's obviously trading on.
      - fooker 2y ago
        Whether a statement is factual doesn't depend on where it is coming from.
        wumeow 2y ago
        But the probability that a statement is factual does.
        fooker 2y ago
        This is about OpenAI getting former NSA chief on its board. There's no probability involved here.
        wumeow 2y ago
        No, this is about what Snowden thinks the consequences of this appointment will be. At least, that’s the charitable reading of the tweet. Really this is just fear-mongering hyperbole.
dturdr 2y ago
[flagged]
- GauntletWizard 2y ago
  He also had the option to be complicit in warrantless wiretapping of a scale unimaginable until his leaks.
  - pizzzle 2y ago
    [flagged]
- dijit 2y ago
  Morally, he believes otherwise.
  - pizzzle 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - janice1999 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - pizzzle 2y ago
        [flagged]
dijit 2y ago
He was en route somewhere else, the US cancelled his passport and downed diplomatic planes out of russia that they suspected he was on, this was an international scandal that you conveniently forgot. Can we please put these myths to bed? or are you intending to intentionally spread this misinformation? EDIT: parent has edited their comment to be much less inflammatory.
- decremental 2y ago
  [dead]
- mindslight 2y ago
  What here are you saying is a myth? I've been a Snowden supporter from the beginning, but it's unwise to ignore the realpolitik of the current situation. It's not like if he starts saying things that are critical of Russia and draws aggro, he can just come back to the West without facing severe persecution. Based on his already having given up so much performing thankless patriotic service to the United States, I'd personally say he's entitled to just live out the rest of his days saying whatever the Kremlin tells him he needs to and otherwise just taking it easy. And I know that's a shitty position for him to be in while still seemingly having plenty to say himself, but that's the reality.
  - dijit 2y ago
    The myth is that he ran to the enemy of the US to be friendly with Russia. There is no reason for the Kremlin to tell him to say anything. There would be a lot of negative consequences for that if it came out and Snowden is quite literally known for being outspoken, and it would also be harmful for Snowden if he was forced to say something untrue. Ironically our own politicians misrepresent the truth far more often than Snowden seems to. But obviously he is refraining from saying anything critical of the very obvious tyrannical situation in Russia
    - mindslight 2y ago
      I don't see that anybody here has said he ended up in Russia because he wanted to be friendly with Russia. Rather simply that going to Russia (and then getting stuck there) was the better alternative to being persecuted by USG. There would be no repercussions for the Kremlin being exposed as having instructed Snowden on what to say. Russian propaganda works in the presence of everyone knowing it's propaganda, by sheer volume. There would obviously be repercussions for Snowden if he talked about any such thing though. The dynamic could also merely just be the implication though, coupled with a bunch of understandable resentment from having been persecuted by USG. (and I don't really care to engage with the whataboutist relativist argument)

by Smeevy 2y ago

fooker 2y ago

But it is not an opinion about your country, unless you think there's significant symbiosis between OpenAI and the US government, proving his point.

Smeevy 2y ago
Quite the opposite. He's saying that OpenAI is a tool of the American surveillance state. I don't even really disagree with that. Edward Snowden saying it while under the protection of the Russian government makes me look for ulterior motives. That's how we're supposed to treat disinformation, isn't it?
- fooker 2y ago
  If you don't disagree with that, what do you disagree wih here? Of course criticizing the US is the ulterior motive here, doesn't make the criticism false.
  - Smeevy 2y ago
    I disagree with the idea that I'm supposed to take Snowden seriously when he is in a compromised and dangerous position. It undermines his integrity, which he's obviously trading on.
    - fooker 2y ago
      Whether a statement is factual doesn't depend on where it is coming from.
      - wumeow 2y ago
        But the probability that a statement is factual does.
        fooker 2y ago
        This is about OpenAI getting former NSA chief on its board. There's no probability involved here.
        wumeow 2y ago
        No, this is about what Snowden thinks the consequences of this appointment will be. At least, that’s the charitable reading of the tweet. Really this is just fear-mongering hyperbole.

dturdr 2y ago

[flagged]

GauntletWizard 2y ago
He also had the option to be complicit in warrantless wiretapping of a scale unimaginable until his leaks.
- pizzzle 2y ago
  [flagged]
dijit 2y ago
Morally, he believes otherwise.
- pizzzle 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - janice1999 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - pizzzle 2y ago
      [flagged]

dijit 2y ago

He was en route somewhere else, the US cancelled his passport and downed diplomatic planes out of russia that they suspected he was on, this was an international scandal that you conveniently forgot. Can we please put these myths to bed? or are you intending to intentionally spread this misinformation? EDIT: parent has edited their comment to be much less inflammatory.

decremental 2y ago
[dead]
mindslight 2y ago
What here are you saying is a myth? I've been a Snowden supporter from the beginning, but it's unwise to ignore the realpolitik of the current situation. It's not like if he starts saying things that are critical of Russia and draws aggro, he can just come back to the West without facing severe persecution. Based on his already having given up so much performing thankless patriotic service to the United States, I'd personally say he's entitled to just live out the rest of his days saying whatever the Kremlin tells him he needs to and otherwise just taking it easy. And I know that's a shitty position for him to be in while still seemingly having plenty to say himself, but that's the reality.
- dijit 2y ago
  The myth is that he ran to the enemy of the US to be friendly with Russia. There is no reason for the Kremlin to tell him to say anything. There would be a lot of negative consequences for that if it came out and Snowden is quite literally known for being outspoken, and it would also be harmful for Snowden if he was forced to say something untrue. Ironically our own politicians misrepresent the truth far more often than Snowden seems to. But obviously he is refraining from saying anything critical of the very obvious tyrannical situation in Russia
  - mindslight 2y ago
    I don't see that anybody here has said he ended up in Russia because he wanted to be friendly with Russia. Rather simply that going to Russia (and then getting stuck there) was the better alternative to being persecuted by USG. There would be no repercussions for the Kremlin being exposed as having instructed Snowden on what to say. Russian propaganda works in the presence of everyone knowing it's propaganda, by sheer volume. There would obviously be repercussions for Snowden if he talked about any such thing though. The dynamic could also merely just be the implication though, coupled with a bunch of understandable resentment from having been persecuted by USG. (and I don't really care to engage with the whataboutist relativist argument)