[gonehome]

If you read the rest of my comment beyond the first line (particularly my blog link), you'd see that I agree with you when it comes to companies taking an ethical stand against authoritarian governments.

What you're arguing is a strawman, we agree more than we disagree.

[baybal2]

> If you read the rest of my comment beyond the first line (particularly my blog link),

I read, and I think your argument is hollow, and, assuming your goodwill, you are not understanding the matter at all, and if not, I see an ill intent.

I do not appreciate all what you say at all. Any argument against encryption must be quashed without exceptions, and second thoughts.

It is only since the start of 21st century, the experience akin to "legs broken, skin flayed alive, and head cut off" has been a grim reality for far more than a million people by now, mostly for, really, nothing. What are talking about this! And what you talk about?

Attack this argument, not something not even having a passing genuine relation to the matter.

[gonehome]

As you’ve responded here and elsewhere, calling an argument “hollow” is not a substantive disagreement.

It seems any argument that you don’t already agree with (basically only your exact position) is classified this way.

The rest of your comment is basically incoherent, and the parts that do make sense are obviously wrong. It’s also a willful misinterpretation of my position.

People were flayed before the 21st century. Acknowledging the issues with encryption is a critical requirement in making an effective defense of it. I am not arguing against encryption.

If this is an issue you actually care about (which it sounds like it is), learning how to build consensus and honestly consider the positions of others would be a valuable skill to develop.

As it stands you’re doing more harm to the pro-encryption position (which is also my position) with how you’re attempting to defend it.