FractalsInfinite

Repost from another comment

Personally I think the comment could've been worded better as it can be interpreted either as

... is always the excuse for fascism ...

(I.E. Fascists use the excuse, provably correct and can be generalised to authoritarianism in general) However I do see that it could potentially be taken the other way as

... is always the excuse for fascism ...

(I.E only those who used the excuse are fascists, completely false) I used the principle of charity and assumed the inital argument was logical, though its understandable if others aren't willing to do that

You seem to have made what's known as a converse error in your logic:

The person you replied to said that

All fascist ideologies will use the argument of "Protecting the children"

You seem to have mistakingly confused that with the false claim

All arguments that use "Protecting the children" are made by fascist ideologies

And as such you have responded to a statement the commenter never made.

And equivalent mistake would be claim that since every time it rains it is cloudy, therefore whenever it is cloudy it is always raining. Honestly logical errors happen for everyone, I hope this helps.

Like this?

Pretty much impossible, especially with so many eyes on the project. It is possible to intentionally introduce vulnerabilities into open source code and use that as a backdoor but for projects like tor keeping that hidden for long periods of time is incredibly difficult due to the number of people independently auditing the code.

Interestingly the founder of the project seems to explicitly disagree with that article

Based on the community being quite succsessful so far despite being made by volunteers, I don't think they will.

Sneakernet is getting worse and worse these days, I'm learning the ancient art of astroprojecting into random people's rooms to consume media.

o7

Anna's Archive seems to be doing a good job of that

victim of properganda

At the very least, you have adequately shown me that the developer is too unstable to be able to guarantee the OS remains secure. Next time I'll use Calyx OS since they are pretty much the sane anyway.

I do want to point out that:

No, he hates them because he was mocked deservedly by Tor devs

Technically the email you linked showed that he hated TOR beforehand, then the devs (rightly) mocked his reasoning, we were both right.

[by your logic] He should make it maximum compliant with governments and spying agencies

Please do not twist my words, though I understand once you assume someone is a bad actor you (quite understandably) give up. My point is that software should not be configured to break the law by default. Why would a user want something that breaks the law when first installed, when most users want to follow the law? Ideally software like this should have separate "legally compliment" and "freedom" branches but I argue having the first one is better then the second one in most cases.

All that being said, enjoy your day