Edward Snowden endorsed Richard Stallman's warnings about proprietary software after Adobe Inc.'s new terms and conditions, which allow for user content review, sparked backlash from professional users.
You don’t want compromised inviduals promoting your points; there are many other who have a measure of consistency in their beliefs and don’t back down (to a regime that makes US surveillance seem like a walk in the park) at the first sign of trouble.
If you don’t want to make such choices, then don’t get involved in activism. It’s very simple.
regime that makes US surveillance seem like a walk in the park
There isn’t such a thing as “good surveillance”, or “better surveillance”, if you do surveillance you can’t pretend a position of moral superiority to others who do the same, even if you still don’t chase people who say certain things online, it’s on the horizon. Thanks to Snowden sacrifice we know some of the USA government surveillance. He didn’t “back down at the first sign of trouble”, what he did made him lose the life he had, I’d like to see you in his position.
I don’t care about the messenger, I care about the message, if it’s true, it doesn’t matter who’s saying it. If Putin says the sky is blue, it won’t turn green. Can Snowden have another intention when he talks about what Adobe is doing? Maybe, I personally doubt it. The point is: this is irrelevant. This does not change the core of what Adobe is doing in any way, nor does it make what it is saying a lie. Just as Stallman defending a member of Epstein’s list does not make false anything that he has said about big corporations, privacy and freedom.
While RMS does come off as provincial and somewhat delusional, he is a very smart and forward-looking fellow. I agree with his take on big corporation, privacy, freedom.
What I don’t agree with is promoting Snowden as a messenger for RMS’ viewpoints. You can’t have it both ways; he can’t be both forced to collaborate with the russians for his “survival” and be open in his statements. There are many other folks worth promoting who share RMS’ viewpoints.
There isn’t such a thing as “good surveillance”, or “better surveillance”, if you do surveillance you can’t pretend a position of moral superiority to others who do the same, even if you still don’t chase people who say certain things online, it’s on the horizon. Thanks to Snowden sacrifice we know some of the USA government surveillance. He didn’t “back down at the first sign of trouble”, what he did made him lose the life he had, I’d like to see you in his position.
This is where you have a very primitive and parochial take. Getting sent to jail via kangaroo court for a relatively moderate social media post is far more damaging than the impact of western surveillance. If you don’t understand this you are lost.
He did back down at the first sign of trouble. He chose to work with the russian security services when things got rough. He had other choices, go back to the US, refuse to work with the russians and just let them know that he would prefer to keep quiet.
You seem to have a very “hollywood” interpretation of russian security services. Yes, they are brutal, but their propaganda/communication outreach is not some “star wars antagonist” type bullshit. They see value in Snowden, simply executing him or even sending him to jail would undermine this value for them.
My logic is survival, you know, a human instinct. And nothing you said about Snowden makes his statement wrong.
Nah, your logic is virtue signalling.
You don’t want compromised inviduals promoting your points; there are many other who have a measure of consistency in their beliefs and don’t back down (to a regime that makes US surveillance seem like a walk in the park) at the first sign of trouble.
If you don’t want to make such choices, then don’t get involved in activism. It’s very simple.
There isn’t such a thing as “good surveillance”, or “better surveillance”, if you do surveillance you can’t pretend a position of moral superiority to others who do the same, even if you still don’t chase people who say certain things online, it’s on the horizon. Thanks to Snowden sacrifice we know some of the USA government surveillance. He didn’t “back down at the first sign of trouble”, what he did made him lose the life he had, I’d like to see you in his position.
I don’t care about the messenger, I care about the message, if it’s true, it doesn’t matter who’s saying it. If Putin says the sky is blue, it won’t turn green. Can Snowden have another intention when he talks about what Adobe is doing? Maybe, I personally doubt it. The point is: this is irrelevant. This does not change the core of what Adobe is doing in any way, nor does it make what it is saying a lie. Just as Stallman defending a member of Epstein’s list does not make false anything that he has said about big corporations, privacy and freedom.
While RMS does come off as provincial and somewhat delusional, he is a very smart and forward-looking fellow. I agree with his take on big corporation, privacy, freedom.
What I don’t agree with is promoting Snowden as a messenger for RMS’ viewpoints. You can’t have it both ways; he can’t be both forced to collaborate with the russians for his “survival” and be open in his statements. There are many other folks worth promoting who share RMS’ viewpoints.
This is where you have a very primitive and parochial take. Getting sent to jail via kangaroo court for a relatively moderate social media post is far more damaging than the impact of western surveillance. If you don’t understand this you are lost.
He did back down at the first sign of trouble. He chose to work with the russian security services when things got rough. He had other choices, go back to the US, refuse to work with the russians and just let them know that he would prefer to keep quiet.
You seem to have a very “hollywood” interpretation of russian security services. Yes, they are brutal, but their propaganda/communication outreach is not some “star wars antagonist” type bullshit. They see value in Snowden, simply executing him or even sending him to jail would undermine this value for them.