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" <[1]seanl@literati.org> wrote:

   On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:47 PM Ryan Carboni <[2]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.

References

   1. mailto:seanl@literati.org
   2. mailto:ryacko@gmail.com