Electronic Freedom Foundation selective in support of freedom
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 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. With ineffective dissidents like these, who needs oppression?
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.
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.
limited hang out On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:46:53 -0800 Ryan Carboni <ryacko@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
With ineffective dissidents like these, who needs oppression?
Great point. It's just controlled opposition.
participants (4)
-
Cari Machet -
juan -
Ryan Carboni -
Sean Lynch