Electronic Freedom Foundation selective in support of freedom

Cari Machet carimachet at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 16:25:19 PST 2016


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 at literati.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:47 PM Ryan Carboni <ryacko at 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 3983 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160107/e5760a47/attachment-0002.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list