5 ms·
The mere act of using Signal is suspicious. But if usage is universal then that suspicion can not be acted on. The suggestion that the motivation for this arti
by whybroke 10y ago
The mere act of using Signal is suspicious. But if usage is universal then that suspicion can not be acted on.
The suggestion that the motivation for this article is profit for the NYT or Moxie is quite destructive.
- at612 10y ago> The suggestion that the motivation for this article is profit for the NYT or Moxie is quite destructive. No, that's literally how it works. Media need to sell copy (clicks these days) and companies need to get coverage. And that's perfectly OK if companies are acting ethically and journalists and editors are doing due diligence. The person that you mention has good connections in the media and uses them to self-promote and promote the tat he sells.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- whybroke 10y ago>...tat he sells... It's free. And normally one would associate such vehement and repetitive insistence on counter-factuals with trolling
- at612 10y ago> It's free. You misunderstand. He is running a company, what do you think their exit strategy is? You may want to look at his previous company and "red phone", I think was his product called. > And normally one would associate such vehement and repetitive insistence on counter-factuals with trolling I am sorry that you do not like to hear this.