I don’t think that new person is not participating in good faith but is likely only here/made an account to counter with info that are invalid or to even potentially troll.
Sound like semantics to me. Somehow she didn’t seem to like it when she got a taste of her own medicine. She literally cried on public television, complaining that she got doxxed. I’m guess she didn’t consider it journalism.
I know, but it is an issue mostly pushed by Republicans, hence my suspicion is that she suddenly realized the importance of privacy just to get a jab at republicans, which I applaud, but still don’t trust her. But hey, maybe she really did have a “Come to Jesus moment”, and after she got doxxed she started appreciate privacy.
That’s fair, I still think she is a terrible journalist. When she openly started fanning over a murderer, and saying he is a morally good person, made me dislike her even more. But you are right, everyone has a right to form their own opinion.
I am not a troll, I have been lurking a long time. Just wanted to provide some other point of view for balance. I hate when people politicize such an important issue as privacy, and Lorenz does exactly that. I am guessing I got rage baited into making an account.
1 Like
Hey man.. if you weren’t already coming into discourse on this topic biased, you would not have this view/opinion. Because you clearly did not watch the video when you made that comment. And hence, I could not take you/your comment seriously.
Hey man. No worries. I personally don’t know much about her, so I don’t have an opinion either way. However, it was cool to hear from someone with a different point-of-view than the others I have seen expressed so far.
1 Like
It should be embedded in the OP, but here you go: https://youtu.be/q0hE4EM7RRo
I was just annoyed because this POV is covered pretty extensively in the video, so I’d agree with others replying here that your comment doesn’t make any sense had you watched before commenting, but I appreciate the feedback in general 
Privacy is political.
It has become a political issue; hence, it is political. The moment a government passes any laws to restrict or protect privacy, it is a clear indication that it is a political issue.
It’s also important to recognize that you can come at an issue from different angles. Although there is obviously a lot of common ground among privacy advocates fighting for the same purpose, motivations also differ among factions. When advocating for privacy and a lot of other issues, it has become clear to me that there are often unique ways to appeal to conservatives that would probably not appeal to progressives, and vice versa. And yet, they’re all on the same side of this issue, but not entirely for the same reasons.
To some people, if you talk about privacy as a way to protect marginalized communities, it won’t move them at all, even though they could someday become marginalized. You have to go at it at another angle in order to persuade them.
Another example is smart meters, which have become a privacy issue. A lot of people are against it simply because they don’t want to be spied on by the government and/or their utility companies. They don’t want to be monetized. Others are against it because they fear that the government could impose some climate change quotas on them. Although there’s an overlap, those motivations are not the same. They come from different political perspectives.
I find that often when people say they don’t want things to get political, what they mean is that they don’t want controversial topics, topics that are likely to divide people, to be discussed. What they often fail to consider is that topics that they don’t consider controversial (e.g., slavery is bad) were once controversial. I think it’s better and clearer to say that they don’t want specific topics to be discussed, rather than just say “no politics” because everything is political to some degree. Topics that were not controversial at all 6 years ago are now considered very controversial.
9 Likes
It’s the video linked in the post
1 Like
This reads like a HN thread: few read the article or watched the video and gotta post their opinions still 
With that, I’d love to have a text transcript of the interview as I much prefer reading, but no priority on that.
4 Likes
Apologies, should have watched the video first. I still don’t like her, as a person, but I am glad she is supporting the fight for Privacy.
4 Likes
This is not getting enough attention. People are thinking that adopting individual privacy measures, like the ones that we discuss everyday in this forum, are going to be enough to save their ass. We need more supporters, people really need to call and request to have those ridiculous bills stopped.
5 Likes
I concur. This should be national news but yet we’re distracted by shiny new ridiculous stories of the admin everyday that acts as distraction from what’s really happening.
We are being overwhelmed with information and drained of energy just to keep up with being able to live - enough to not be able to learn of and question the government and fight for our rights we clearly would under any other circumstances.
Great interview, however, I’m not a fan of the pre-typed message on BadInternetBills.com which they want you to sign. It seems they unnecessarily made it a very partisan message against Trump. They could’ve just as easily left his name out of it completely, and instead just put the word “government” in there instead of Trump and that would probably get more signatures. I signed it, but I had to re-write the message first. Many people may instead just not sign it and move on.
Here is what I changed mine to if anyone is interested in copying it.
Passing bills that weaken end-to-end encryption, require online ID checks, or repeal Section 230—which protects free speech online— It will give government the power to crush public and private dissenters. Lives will be irreparably harmed if you enable the government to surveil our messages, or age gate and censor online resources for vulnerable communities. If you care about your constituents, you should oppose KOSA, the SCREEN Act, STOP CSAM, the Cooper Davis Act, and any bill to impose age verification requirements or to end free speech protections.
2 Likes
Maybe you can share your message here for others to use
2 Likes
Good suggestion. I edited my comment to include it.
1 Like
Haven’t seen the video yet but do we have ripchord .onion or I2P setup in the event we need to keep this show rolling when the internet gets unusable?
I could almost see these laws getting passed as initially terrible crisis but also just force us to move to an anonymous internet to do anything.
I don’t see how you could enforce a ban for e2e encryption except for mainstream sites.
Journalists already live in anon world. Not like I want this but if it’s gonna happen I’m in the mode at looking at silver linings at this point.
1 Like
http://www.xoe4vn5uwdztif6goazfbmogh6wh5jc4up35bqdflu6bkdc5cas5vjqd.onion/
Not sure why it doesn’t show up on the front page, I had to navigate to the KB to get it to appear as an option in TBB. @jonah is that a known thing or something worth looking into?
US organizations like The Tor Project, Inc. would be sued for developing or providing access to anonymous/encrypted networks. Tor has already successfully defended against lawsuits using Section 230, so if it were repealed, stupid cases like this one would have to be expensively litigated in court rather than dismissed:
All of Plaintiff’s claims are state law causes of action that would hold Tor, an internet service provider, liable for information originating with a third party. Those claims are barred by the CDA. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Tor are dismissed.
As you can imagine, getting this memo/dismissal from the court is way cheaper than having to defend yourself in trial from speech someone else said in the first place.
3 Likes
I don’t see the importance of this. Even if this was true, please criticize what she says in this video instead of who she is. This is valid for everyone.
I’m not even sure what ripchord is, but honestly I’m kind of surprised that PG doesn’t have an onion or i2p address