Its not allowing the release, its requiring it.

I’ve never used any, but Molly seems well liked

You can use Signal with a different client. Signal being operated within the US has no effect. As of now the jurisdictions that I know of to be worried about are:

The UK, where Apple was recently ordered to remove end-to-end encryption features, and have been gagged from talking about it

Sweden, where a law is proposed to add an encryption backdoor

The EU, where leadership is pushing for an encryption backdoor

My understanding is that the Indian government under the BJP and Congress has been pretty consistently anti-encryption, and violated privacy rights

France arrested the founder of Telegram for using end to end encryption in Telegram

Australia in 2018 passed a law that enabled the government to require communications platforms add a backdoor for government decryption. The Director of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) said that “privacy is important but not absolute”. Which has the same vibes as “this is not about human rights, this is about human life.”

WhatsApp was previously suspended in Brazil for refusing to hand over decrypted messages.

Austria is in the process of passing legislation allowing police to backdoor encryption in messaging apps

China and Russia are very obvious problems. Here’s an easy one of many examples

The White House both in Trump’s first term and in Biden’s presidency were pro-encryption. Signal and Tor were US government funded projects. That’s not to say the US is great on encryption, and there have been laws in the past that did/were proposed to limit it. But, as of now, it seems that the US is (edit: one of) the most hospitable jurisdictions for encrypted messaging non-profits.

BTW, I’m not saying using Tox is bad, or that Signal is good, I’m just talking about the US jurisdiction part.

Does it really matter who made it if you can see the source code? You don’t have to trust them.

And engineers who stood to make a lot of money

This is just being poor

I don’t agree with that

You’re saying you would, I explained why others might not feel the same way, and still genuinely oppose them

I argue with people for a lot of reasons. I an saying no one has an inherent obligation to argue with anyone.

Because that’s me being an argumentative person, I don’t think someone has an obligation to, to prove to external observers they’re not a nazi. That’s also not their job.

We already talked about this

Having a “fun” conversation with a nazi

Next paragraph explains

But whatever, I just don’t care - you are not beholden to be kind to someone just because they are multifaceted and complete humans. Humans can be evil, and if even one of those “facets” is murdering or a desire for genocide, I have every right to disagree with that. I do not owe anyone my time, or my patience.

I agree, you don’t have to. But just because you choose not to, doesn’t make me a nazi if I choose to. That was what this was about, it was never about forcing you.

Funny if you’re racist.

Again they have the capacity to say stuff outside that.

And again, I do not have to wade through a mile of shit and corpses just because there might be a slice of cake at the end. I am allowed to say “no, fuck off”.

And again where did I try to change your mind on that?

Like I already said: when you said you’d prefer a “fun” nazi to someone else “boring”, and implied by you taking issue with me saying you should either argue or leave. This implies you’d prefer to stay and not argue. And if you’re not arguing with them or leaving, what are you doing? Standing completely still with no words or body language of your own? No, you’re engaging in the conversation.

You understand that nazis talk about a weather too? I would do the same as I do with everyone. Make it clear I disagree with what I disagree with, but also have the capacity to talk about other stuff.

Well it is your responsibility in some ways to not intentionally mistreat others. But I agree your job isn’t to talk to racists. I never tried to tell you it was. I did tell you someone can talk to racists without being a racist themselves though.

Why are you arguing with me, then, when all I said was that you shouldn’t accept being in the presence of their beliefs?

Okay, so you agree you can accept a person as a human and a friend without accepting their beliefs? Because that’s what I’m saying

And no, accepting a belief means not challenging it, implicitly treating it as normal.

I wouldn’t really agree with that only because its just not your job. You don’t have a responsibility with burdening yourself with constantly correcting others.

I can’t imagine compromising on my beliefs simply for… what… entertainment??

Where did I compromise on my beliefs?

“Oh, well, he’d like to kill all the non-whites, but he told a good joke one time.”

Seriously, you must have a severely broken moral compass to think like this.

I mean did you see what I said about literally explicitly being okay with being friends with a murderer. If you’re actually curious about why I think like that: I think people are much more multifaceted than most people give credit for. They’re molded by their environment, habits they fall into. I think behaviors and beliefs are closer to habits, or sometimes addictions, to ways of thinking than they are fixed elements of a “personality” or “identity”. I think there are probably many killers who were genuinely sweet, and kind, and caring, to their friends and family- and when they’re like that, that’s just as much them as when they’re doing genuinely evil things. I can see the human while also not enabling the evil.

But even putting all that aside, I can’t imagine a Nazi ever being “fun to talk to”. Fun for them is beating up ethnic minorities. Jokes to them are bullying those who are different.

Yea I agree their sense of humor is often really bad. “N-word == funny” type stuff. But there might be some some actually funny ones. Also the worst thing is how they always want to bring everything back to the jews. Like I can think a movie is bad without wanting to hear a 10 minute rant about how the jews control Hollywood.

And you’d just happily nod along to their racist statements about ethnic minorities?

Where did I say that?

That’s not enabling them

your neighbours who judge you for who you talk with, instead of for what you say.

I mean that’s their choice.

I do argue with Nazis. Why do you continue to let them exist.

That’s you trying to deflect.

That’s me saying you have a different definition to accept from me. I consider accepting a belief to be believing the belief is acceptable and sane. I do not accept nazism.

Then you accept the beliefs of Nazis by your definition. After all, you haven’t killed any yet.

You’re a fucking Nazi, just not the kind you’re thinking of. You’re the everyday Nazi, who sat there in Germany and shrugged as people were starved and beaten and gassed.

No I’m not. That’s a lie and you know that’s a lie. You know that’s a lie because I’m saying exactly what I say despite knowing most people will disagree with it. Especially most Nazis. And especially because I’m not hiding behind anonymity while I do it. Those people were people unwilling to standard for their beliefs. Unwilling to disagree with authority or the majority. I’ve proven I am not that. But even when I’m right this is pointless, because as Noam Chomsky said:

“There’s no way of responding. If somebody calls you an anti-Semite, what can you say? “I’m not an anti-Semite”? If somebody says, “You’re a racist, you’re a nazi”, you always lose. I mean, the person who throws the mud always wins, because there’s no way of responding.”

they’re not, a person’s views inform the way they act.

Yep, exactly. And that’s exactly thing. And when they act is when I act.

is the gas chambers, it’s the people making lists of of other people for Nazis to kill, it’s the public beatings and total lack of freedom and justice for all.

And those are all actions that I will fight against. Being a Nazi it of itself is not an action, and doesn’t necessitate those actions. I already talked about actions, you just ignored that paragraph other than the first two sentences.

Why? It accurately describes what society is.

Because a contract is a real thing in which explicitly defined parties of adults voluntarily consent to explicitly defined terms. The “social contract” is none of those things.