3 ms·

This is a bad faith comparison and I'm not going to engage with it.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
I'm honestly not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between them. Clearly any ordinary product can be used for nefarious purposes. The distinction some people try to draw is when a higher proportion of a product's users are nefarious, but that doesn't really work either because who uses something can change over time. If you have a society where nobody has window blinds or locks on their doors because it's a rural area and there is no one around to invade your privacy then locks will be disproportionately used by neerdowells "with something to hide", and then busybodies will claim that anyone with nothing to hide shouldn't be concealing their private spaces and anyone selling or using any privacy technology should be pressured to stop. Which sustains the status quo through external pressure even if someone does start invading everyone's privacy. And that's what's been happening on the internet. Surveillance is the default, Cloudflare et al block Tor users as a matter of course and that drives normal people from Tor and similar technologies even though they would otherwise benefit from its use. People are told that it's the dark web where there are criminals and they shouldn't use it -- it being Tor Browser, the thing that keeps ad networks from tracking them across the internet. Then after dispersing the normal users who would otherwise benefit from using it, people say that it has a lot of nefarious users to justify the continued harassment of anyone who does. But that's just path dependence, and there are parties interested in leading us down the garden path to mass surveillance.
- Propelloni 2y ago
  > Clearly any ordinary product can be used for nefarious purposes. Right, I could kill a person with a spoon. Still we regulate guns and not spoons, why is that?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between them Cost versus benefit. Steel has massive, obvious benefits. That makes its costs worth it. On the other hand, several toxic compounds have no known benefits and are tighty regulated. You're trying to argue Tor's costs are worth its benefits. But that requires being clear-eyed about both. You can't build buildings and spaceships out of Tor. But neither can you fashion it into a gun. Unless you're arguing for solely action-based regulation, never access-based, which is its own idiotic can of worms.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  I believe you are right. I have heard OP's argument many times before, it is almost akin to the "you only need privacy if you have something to hide" and whatnot; same kind of mentality. Everything could be used for nefarious purposes, and I do not think that is why we should "stop having nice things". By their logic, we should get rid of encryption, too, completely.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    You apparently read what you thought I was going to say and not what I actually wrote. This does not even begin to approach an accurate assessment of what I said or meant. I'm saying that too many people in this forum are too comfortable completely ignoring the harm that Tor causes, and in order to make a good judgement call about whether to run an exit node the harms need to be surfaced. Full stop. Everything else that you and others in this thread read into my comment is on you, not me.
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      Tor does not inherently cause harm, though. Similarly to how E2EE does not cause harm, nor do platforms (or programs) where you are allowed to exchange messages. Do you agree with the first statement or not? If not, what are the differences between Tor and IM software with E2EE?
      - lolinder 2y ago
        > Tor does not inherently cause harm, though. Case in point. > If not, what are the differences between Tor and IM software with E2EE? I would never run an IM software with e2e encryption either, for the same reason. I don't want to be paying to move data that is being used to hurt people, no matter how many people I'd be benefiting in the process. If other people come to a different decision that's entirely reasonable as long as they're cognizant of the harms caused and not in denial.
        johnisgood 2y ago

I'm honestly not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between them. Clearly any ordinary product can be used for nefarious purposes. The distinction some people try to draw is when a higher proportion of a product's users are nefarious, but that doesn't really work either because who uses something can change over time. If you have a society where nobody has window blinds or locks on their doors because it's a rural area and there is no one around to invade your privacy then locks will be disproportionately used by neerdowells "with something to hide", and then busybodies will claim that anyone with nothing to hide shouldn't be concealing their private spaces and anyone selling or using any privacy technology should be pressured to stop. Which sustains the status quo through external pressure even if someone does start invading everyone's privacy. And that's what's been happening on the internet. Surveillance is the default, Cloudflare et al block Tor users as a matter of course and that drives normal people from Tor and similar technologies even though they would otherwise benefit from its use. People are told that it's the dark web where there are criminals and they shouldn't use it -- it being Tor Browser, the thing that keeps ad networks from tracking them across the internet. Then after dispersing the normal users who would otherwise benefit from using it, people say that it has a lot of nefarious users to justify the continued harassment of anyone who does. But that's just path dependence, and there are parties interested in leading us down the garden path to mass surveillance.

Propelloni 2y ago
> Clearly any ordinary product can be used for nefarious purposes. Right, I could kill a person with a spoon. Still we regulate guns and not spoons, why is that?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between them Cost versus benefit. Steel has massive, obvious benefits. That makes its costs worth it. On the other hand, several toxic compounds have no known benefits and are tighty regulated. You're trying to argue Tor's costs are worth its benefits. But that requires being clear-eyed about both. You can't build buildings and spaceships out of Tor. But neither can you fashion it into a gun. Unless you're arguing for solely action-based regulation, never access-based, which is its own idiotic can of worms.
johnisgood 2y ago
I believe you are right. I have heard OP's argument many times before, it is almost akin to the "you only need privacy if you have something to hide" and whatnot; same kind of mentality. Everything could be used for nefarious purposes, and I do not think that is why we should "stop having nice things". By their logic, we should get rid of encryption, too, completely.
- lolinder 2y ago
  You apparently read what you thought I was going to say and not what I actually wrote. This does not even begin to approach an accurate assessment of what I said or meant. I'm saying that too many people in this forum are too comfortable completely ignoring the harm that Tor causes, and in order to make a good judgement call about whether to run an exit node the harms need to be surfaced. Full stop. Everything else that you and others in this thread read into my comment is on you, not me.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    Tor does not inherently cause harm, though. Similarly to how E2EE does not cause harm, nor do platforms (or programs) where you are allowed to exchange messages. Do you agree with the first statement or not? If not, what are the differences between Tor and IM software with E2EE?
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > Tor does not inherently cause harm, though. Case in point. > If not, what are the differences between Tor and IM software with E2EE? I would never run an IM software with e2e encryption either, for the same reason. I don't want to be paying to move data that is being used to hurt people, no matter how many people I'd be benefiting in the process. If other people come to a different decision that's entirely reasonable as long as they're cognizant of the harms caused and not in denial.
      - johnisgood 2y ago