The @eff is pretty fucked up

The anomizers history is intertwined with that of the USG

I find their budgets vague

They funded tor numerous times thru the years which i find strange

They do no boots on the ground work that i am aware of

They have been supra-nationalistic which is strange

I cld go on but... yay lets all be grateful for what exsists sure YAY! however having a critical eye should be a main job of any one of us ... o whats that saying?... i cant remember .... oh yay >>> trust no one

On Jan 7, 2016 1:15 AM, "Sean Lynch" <seanl@literati.org> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:47 PM Ryan Carboni <ryacko@gmail.com> wrote:

> These occurred five years apart, and only the second one involved an actual
> court case. I don't think it's a reasonable comparison.

Maybe not. But one must tirelessly question inconsistencies. The
amount of harm to Backpage is very indirect, it was a letter to credit
card companies. The EFF however is okay with a letter to a printer -
the web host - to discontinue service. Comparatively, the harm to
wikileaks was far greater than that to Backpage, but the EFF was more
willing to support Backpage with a brief, than to volunteer support to
Wikileaks.

I think you're leaving out something kind of important in your comparison. Whatever you think of the morality of what Wikileaks is doing (personally, I strongly support it, even if I don't consider Julian Assange the best poster child), they *are* breaking US law. Amazon's terms of service don't allow that, and AIUI that's what Lieberman's (who is below Satan and Eric Posner on my list of favorite people) letter said. I'm guessing the circuit court would not have found that the sheriff's letter to the credit card companies constituted a prior restraint on freedom of speech had it been about Backpage's breaking the law.

 

I have no doubt that Glenn Greenwald will never mention this,
afterall, he himself is selective in questioning other public figures.
He'd never question public figures in a meaningful way. And apparently
neither will the EFF.

Everyone needs to make their own choices about where they want to take risks and spend their time and credibility/political capital. I'm happy Greenwald and the EFF do what they do. I don't think they're perfect, but I'm not one to talk; I've found myself self-censoring quite a lot more since my kids were born.

 

With ineffective dissidents like these, who needs oppression?

I'd certainly prefer a world with the EFF and Greenwald but without the NSA, CIA, GCHQ, etc. I'm sure you don't mean this literally, but I do think it's important to keep a sense of perspective.

If you're dissatisfied with the willingness of various dissidents to... well... dissent, let's talk about how we can influence them or others to dissent in ways you think will be more effective.