Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 342 posts

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#241

Post by jvanderbot »

XorNot wrote: post #48
jvanderbot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only only that, there is something so intrinsically human about communication, and something so vulnerable about having every word archived. How does it go? "Give me a sentence from and honest man and I'll find a way to hang him?" or something. To be clear, I 100% believe that self defense is also intrinsic to being a mobile animal, and everyone has the right to be their own first line of self defense. But most p…

Eh, I've never much cared for that quote or the common interpretation of it. People take it as though the problem is the surveillance. But it's the last part which tells you what's up: "I'll find a way to hang him". The speaker is telling you what they're going to do - everything else is a formality. Your problem began well before they had a sentence, and wouldn't end if they didn't have one.

A malicious, unlawful actor should be denied all methods of acting out their purpose, as long as it doesn't hurt lawful actors more than they are willing to accept.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#242

Post by username332211 »

enragedcacti wrote: post #179
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rising intolerance of wrongthink on the left has been written about extensively but I’d love to read a sympathetic, anthropological investigation into it. I say sympathetic because I don’t believe you can understand anything without really seeing how a reasonable person could come to those same conclusions.

The paradox of tolerance gets you a long way to understanding it, but you will also have to be far more specific if you want answers because practically everyone has limits to what they consider acceptable speech, even if they don't call it that. Beyond that, there is a pretty concerted effort to elevate minor grievances into the national spotlight to portray the left a certain way, e.g. the Oberlin Cafeteria scandal…

The paradox of tolerance is the invention of Karl Popper, a member of the Mont Pelerin Society - a hard-right group literally founded by F.A. Hayek. It is a justification for the persecution of collectivists, which mostly meant the persecution of left-wingers at the time. It's the justification of the actions general Pinochet would later undertake.

The only way I can use such a thing to understand left wing thought is by assuming someone is picking and choosing ideas in the pursuit of power . Citing it makes me think of an unconventional medieval priest who tries to justify burning all his enemies at the stake by combining Calvin's inflexible concept of damnation with the Catholic penchant for punishing sinners and heretics.

And the simplest statement of the paradox is "It's OK to persecute and kill collectivists (meaning communists and fascist), because they deny the validity of a universal reason". I assure you it's not an argument that justifies "de-platforming".

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#243

Post by 4bpp »

digging wrote: post #208
bigdang wrote: post #162

> The company’s aggressive pursuit of growth, coupled with lack of moderation in the app, has already led Signal employees themselves to publicly question whether growth might come from abusive users, such as far-right groups using Signal to organize. Lol what? What exactly does far-right mean in this case? Why intersperse irrelevant political digs at another ill-defined faction? Does far-right just mean non-progress…

> What exactly does far-right mean in this case? I thought, just maybe, they're referring to the groups of openly fascist Americans who attacked the US capitol and organized other violent events. But maybe you're right and "far-right" is meaningless. I don't know why you would be right - it doesn't even make sense to raise the questions you raised, but I supposed we should consider your opinion.

In what sense were the capitol rioters "openly fascist"? I have not seen any meaningful political group in the US trying to own the label; it is only ever applied to political enemies.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#244

Post by k_bx »

pjerem wrote: post #87
k_bx wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've established their name and reputation, now they need to build on top of that. Like Mozilla and their VPN product, Signal can do a similar thing, keeping the Signal free.

I would be surprised if Mozilla’s VPN was a substantial source of income. They are just reselling Mullvad’s VPN but for double price. That’s incredibly lazy and I hope Signal will find something more ambitious.

That is a mistake by Mozilla IMO. They could've done better. But VPN is just a beginning, there are many other opportunities. Like recently-launched containerized JS playground. Or hosted email. Or Nextcloud-like product in general. Many ways to go.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#245

Post by gyior »

pravus wrote: post #108
gorgoiler wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you and the word “implicit” is crucial here. If the state is suspicious of you then they can come over, break in, tie you up, search all your stuff, and take anything they like home with them. It sounds infuriating but it’s what we need in order for the state to catch villains and the crucial part is they can only do it with a warrant . If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your m…

> If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your messages, you’d probably be sour but you should also be morally ok with complying. No. It is not my moral obligation to obey the orders of other human beings. Ever. If you want this to be a moral issue you must first prove that there is a moral basis for compliance and I've yet to hear one. Pointing a gun to my face and telling me what to do doesn't…

[flagged]

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#246

Post by mcpackieh »

kelnos wrote: post #97
wredue wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has not been a liberal push away from encryption. In fact, it is the fascist right that want to remove privacy, has passed laws (like PATRIOT) to do so, and the supporters simply say “if you don’t want to be spied on, then what are you hiding” The right wing are the ones actively pushing this along with “if you think privacy is a right, then you are a predator. Won’t someone think of the children?!”

Pretty sure Democratic Congresspeople have co-sponsored the EARN IT Act. Both sides are complicit in this garbage.

wredue said

> "There has not been a liberal push away from encryption."

Pointing out Democratic congresspeople who push away from encryption does not contradict wredue's claim. Liberal is not a party affiliation, when Democratic congresspeople push away from liberal principles they are being illiberal. Liberal doesn't mean "whatever it is that Democratic politicians support".

And yes, I know this is confusing to Americans who received their political education from AM talk radio or cable television, who's understanding of the term amounts to "whatever it is that Democratic politicians say." When a Democratic politician calls for violent lyrics in rap music to be banned (as some did in the 90s), that is illiberal. When a Republican says that abortion should be legal, that is liberal. Even though liberal values are generally associated more with one party than the other, that doesn't mean liberalism is nothing more than party affiliation.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#247

Post by WeylandYutani »

foldr wrote: post #197
bigdang wrote: post #162

> The company’s aggressive pursuit of growth, coupled with lack of moderation in the app, has already led Signal employees themselves to publicly question whether growth might come from abusive users, such as far-right groups using Signal to organize. Lol what? What exactly does far-right mean in this case? Why intersperse irrelevant political digs at another ill-defined faction? Does far-right just mean non-progress…

Hard to tell if you are asking in good faith, but the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page has a perfectly serviceable definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics >Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, refers to a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies. The name derives from the left…

Fascinating. By this measure de Santis and practically all Republican mainstream candidates would be considered far right.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#248

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

hiatus wrote: post #226
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not true in technology that either everyone has access to protected communications, or none do? If the world needs products like Signal, then we just have to accept the inevitable fact that everyone will get products like Signal, or none will. This isn't enriched uranium, it can't be restricted to the few approved.

> This isn't enriched uranium, it can't be restricted to the few approved. You say this in jest but encryption was export-controlled under ITAR in my lifetime. With the persistent government attacks on encryption increasing in frequency around the world, I wouldn't be surprised if we see more attempts at containing it in ways not unlike the control of enriched uranium.

> You say this in jest but encryption was export-controlled under ITAR in my lifetime.

And then Zimmerman sort of screwed that up, didn't he? I remember, bet we're about the same age.

> With the persistent government attacks on encryption increasing in frequency around the world, I wouldn't be surprised if we see more attempts at containing it in ways not unlike the control of enriched uranium.

Everything possible must be done to thwart such efforts.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#249

Post by foldr »

WeylandYutani wrote: post #247
foldr wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to tell if you are asking in good faith, but the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page has a perfectly serviceable definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics >Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, refers to a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies. The name derives from the left…

Fascinating. By this measure de Santis and practically all Republican mainstream candidates would be considered far right.

Only if you agree that de Santis is, e.g., an ultra-nationalist. And if you do agree that all or most of those points apply to de Santis, then it's hard to see why you'd not agree that he's far right. I mean, who would be far right in that case? Only ultra-ultra-nationalists who are more-than-just-radically conservative?

To be clear, I'm not expressing an opinion here as to whether de Santis is far right. I'm saying that anyone who disagrees that he is will probably also disagree that at least one component of Wikipedia's definition applies to him.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#250

Post by monetus »

anonym29 wrote: post #174
hnarn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s pretty important to point out that Signal allows you to import this number with a QR code, so it’s not very arduous to do to verification.

[flagged]

The roads would indeed be more enjoyable as well if only mechanics were allowed to drive on them, but alas.
Post reply on HN