• ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Oh yes I forgot that pointing out the flaws in privacy-related things, so people who are interested in switching know what they’re potentially getting in to, is a big NoNo here…all hail the perfect FOSS which can do no wrong.

      • PigeonEnjoyer@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Yup, privacy (and many other things) should be done to ones ability and not to ability of others.

        • baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          They’re the ones foisting their requirements on others. Somebody shares what they do, and the purists come storming in with their righteous condescension. Nobody asked for that negativity.

          • Michael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            54 minutes ago

            In this case, your assessment is fair - user is harsh, name-calls, and does talk down to the person they were responding to/the reader. I got lost in the chain.

            Regardless, accusations of purity testing come up more than enough online for my liking and it isn’t always in response to righteous condescension, as you aptly described the user’s behavior in this example.

    • Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Don’t feel pressured by me. If you feel pressured yourself, it may be a form of projected guilt.

      If you don’t find privacy and security important enough to give up your connectivity or usability, that’s perfectly fine. I don’t have to live with it.