If you have legitimacy as a privacy advocate, standing in front of their logo at a privacy conf transfers it to themhttps://twitter.com/aral/status/764831643936911361 …
-
-
-
All these corps need to continue violating our privacy is to remain socially acceptable. That’s what you give them.https://twitter.com/aral/status/764832210700660736 …
-
Academics seem to be the ones who have the greatest problem understanding this. Most happy to be directly sponsored.https://twitter.com/aral/status/764832465315831808 …
-
Thankfully, there are heroes like
@SpiekSarah who refuse to be sponsored to privacy-wash corporations.#integrityhttps://twitter.com/aral/status/764832994372775936 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you think that anyone attending any event that has sponsors with whom they disagree, legitimises the sponsors regardless?
-
Indeed. However, it’s worse when it’s a *privacy event*. e.g., by speaking at SxSW, you don’t legitimise FB, etc on privacy.
-
If FB were the organisers, I would agree. But they are sponsors. No-one believes that this makes this privacy advocates.
-
It's no different than writing an article for a newspaper that has advertisting in it from a company with whom you disagree.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I appreciate the argument, which is why I asked, but please don't try to patronise me by telling me to read something we've all read.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.