Thread is interesting, but seems to falsely assume that large groups wanting to communicate privately are likely to be nefarious. I imagine pro freedom groups in Hong Kong disagree.https://twitter.com/JeffHorwitz/status/1452371540461248513 …
-
-
He mentioned Hong Kong because it is a large group that needs the ability to communicate in private. But everyone needs the ability to communicate privately, even if its not the case of protesting a totalitarian state seeking to take your civil liberties from you.
-
And people assuming that people who want to be able to communicate in private are inherently criminal are the same people who think people who invoke the fifth amendment rights against self incrimination during a police interview or in court, are somehow inherently guilty.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I was just pointing out a large group living under a repressive regime that might need to communicate without gov't surveillance. I picked Hong Kong. I could pick others. I wasn't commenting on Facebook specifically, and I'm confused by this line of accusatory questioning.
-
Would a repressive regime tolerate large scale encrypted messaging app where the govt can't eavesdrop? They may simply outlaw it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Russian here. Navalny regularly used Facebook to organize rallies in the past for example.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.