I came across a few comments and topics here telling people who strongly advocate for privacy to be more “moderate”, and to “sound less crazy”. People who say that should be ignored and even banned if they persist. Time and time again privacy advocates and skeptics of the “if you don’t have anything to hide you shouldn’t worry” have been proven right, while the other side has been proven wrong. Remember when James Clapper lied in front of congress? I do. Remember when Snowden used to be glorified as long as it served the purpose of the media and some politicians? I do. How do people think of Snowden now? As a traitor, a rat, someone who should be executed.
Privacy is a universal human right, we all deserve to have some. Yet, being welcoming and open to people who are here to set obstacles for us at every step is not only counterproductive but foolish. They clearly don’t care about privacy, and they certainly don’t care if others lose it, so why should we welcome them here and embrace their drivel and gibberish with open arms? They are a detriment to our cause.
My two cents.
I was expecting a response such as yours.
Good meaning movements tend to be very open to outside influences and that’s how they lose everything in the process.
You invite the fox to the hen-house, you get devoured. The rest is childish idealism.
deleted by creator
Absolutism like this is also a little silly. We need a range of strategies, from the most radical to the most reserved.
IMO there’s nothing wrong with being radical, analyzing a problem from the roots often means your conclusions are going to be very extreme, but that’s part of change.
However, being bigoted is a problem, it means you’re being hateful, hate cannot change the world, it only worsens it. I don’t disagree with the opinions of OP, but at the same time i encourage the community not to polarize.