[d23]

As another commenter suggested: it's absurd beyond parody and a flagrant abuse of language to conflate being a "front" with being compelled by a third party (especially one with legal authority) to do some action(s). Being a "front" suggests an entire business model created by and built around propping up that third party such that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level.

[thaumasiotes]

> Being a "front" suggests an entire business model created by and built around propping up that third party such that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level.

No. One party being a front for another party suggests that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level, or more accurately that any action taken by the first party might be better viewed as being "really" taken by the second party, that any information given to the first party is also being given to the second party, etc. It does not suggest that fronting for the second party is the only thing the first party does, or that the first party was created to serve the purposes of the second party.

Taking an example out of the dictionary, it would be unusual to claim that a massage parlor serving as a front for prostitution is obviously, by its nature as a "front", unwilling to provide massages.

[graperapist1480]

so when google releases its 13th chat app, that’s really the CIA doing it? Netflix’s chaos monkey program is ackthuallee an intelligence scam to attack your distributed systems from within?

[thaumasiotes]

How did you go from

> It does not suggest that fronting for the second party is the only thing the first party does

to

> Netflix’s chaos monkey program is ackthuallee an intelligence scam to attack your distributed systems from within?

You're trying to interpret me as saying literally the opposite of the plain text of my comment. Work on your reading comprehension.

But yes, when Google releases its 13th chat app, there are good reasons to view that as being a CIA chat app with Google branding.

[graperapist1480]

> more accurately that any action taken by the first party might be better viewed as being "really" taken by the second party

your comment was basically contradictory. As is this new one - google meet and google duo is a “CIA chat app”? Why?

What does that mean? Is someone previously on the Google Duo team a CIA officer? Is the leader of the team an asset? What design decisions are CIA adjacent? Where is this happening

[thaumasiotes]

> google meet and google duo is a “CIA chat app”? Why?

> What does that mean?

It means that the app may be used to advance CIA goals. It means that the CIA has control of the app along any dimension you're worried about. This is the nature of obfuscated relationships. If you're worried about something, and it's likely to be true, you need to assume that it is true. In this case, the assumption is justified. If you're not worried about something, you don't need to make the assumption that it's true. Since it doesn't matter, you can afford not to have a position on it.

[graperapist1480]

this seems false

> May be used to advance CIA goals

What does this mean? Can CIA add a voice and video chat feature if the deputy director of it wants it? Can the CIA freely access internal communications? How? Who does this? Does Larry know? How do you know?

> cia has control over the app along any dimension

This is an excessively strong claim. Can the CIA delete the app and end the project if they feel like it today? Can they see what I’m typing before I post it? Again, why? Who knows about this? How do they do it?