[CRConrad]

> Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?

Way not to get the point.

Are you saying the overwhelming majority of users on some network GP manages are using it to do "naughty things"? Yes, then of course GP should shut it down. That's why the question in this sub-thread is "Is this used for other stuff too, or in practice almost exclusively for morally repugnant stuff that I don't want to support?".

If the question can't be answered, that's one thing; then people will have to base their moral judgment of whether to participate or not upon their own more or less educated guess. But most of the proponents here seem not to (want to) even understand the question, and in reply gibber about anything and everything except what was asked. Which makes not only themselves but the very thing they seem to think they're defending come off in a real shitty light.

Way to score an own goal.

[h_anna_h]

No need to be so hostile and toxic. I only mentioned it because this is an actual argument against TLS that I have seen being used in the past, even by popular sites such as pornhub for example (before being forced to enable TLS due to google downranking non-https sites). I also mentioned it because one of the points of TLS is to hide what kind of content is being accessed, so just like freenet you will not know whether most of the traffic is used for naughty things even if you want to, you can only assume. Especially since nowadays http has the Host header and services such as cloudflare are popular, so checking whether a user made a request to a "bad" IP address won't be effective.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

> Yes, then of course GP should shut it down

I would say that this is debatable.

[user-the-name]

You are saying THAT is the "hostile and toxic" response that is not in good faith, but you are fine with "Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?"

[h_anna_h]

> that is not in good faith

I did not say that. I am sure that CRConrad is acting in good faith.

> but you are fine with

Yes, I explained why I said it in the post that you are replying to. My biggest mistake was using sarcasm to convey the message I guess.

Anyway, it would be nice if you focused on the essence of my post instead of the weak presentation of my last point.

[CRConrad]

> > that is not in good faith

> I did not say that. I am sure that CRConrad is acting in good faith.

Oh yeah? Quoting the admonition to "Assume good faith" at me in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28591865 certainly at least strongly implies the opposite.

[h_anna_h]

No, rather, it asks from you to assume good faith from me.

[CRConrad]

You don't explicitly ask that of everyone you reply to in every one of your replies, do you? So asking it specifically of me strongly implies that you didn't think I did.

[CRConrad]

Not only "fine with"; they wrote it.

[CRConrad]

> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Yeah, well, sorry, but I really couldn't see much of a stronger interpretation.

I mean, hey, was my take all that much more of "a weaker one that's easier to criticize" than:

>>> Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?

? I'd say no.