i made my comment pretty early before getting up to go vote in our election. i’ll admit i was premature on having an opinion as i just skimmed the content here and didn’t look into things much.

this project is definitely interesting. i suppose my sentiment initially was less that i don’t trust the cryptography, and more a general weariness of new open source projects. after reading more about the implementation there isn’t anything that jumps out at me as particularly egregious.

i support FOSS and the related philosophies a whole lot, i believe it to be one of the only ways to take our lives and communities back these days.

however, with that said, i have to disagree with this sentiment:

Nobody will be justifying their existence in front of a random internet user.

random internet users are the open source movement. new projects must justify their existence and trustworthy nature to the community. not that these people haven’t, obviously they haven’t had the chance yet.

an open mind, absolutely. but history has shown bad actors are abound, as well. i’m not sure what the proper solution here is, and i don’t think anyone else is absolutely 100% certain either. removing trust from the equation isn’t easy.

idk i’m kind of just babbling at this point tho. thanks for the civil discussion

that still isn’t an explanation of how the server supposedly “does not have the means to decrypt them [the messages]”, which isn’t me saying it’s impossible. i’m well aware of possible cryptographic solutions here. but, it isn’t wrong to be sus of this application until the organization/developers have demonstrated a degree of trustworthiness. i honestly don’t see why you would use this over just encrypting and transfering the data yourself using more traditional methods that involve the minimum number of parties. i might just be ignorant of this project, but i’m weary of it until i have a chance for further investigation

frankly the amount of downvotes i’m getting combined with the way you immediately begin arguing against me? missing the point.

after your first rebuttal: can you come up with a way to justify this that doesnt have to do with what doctors are already deciding? i know i might seem like an asshole right now, but i genuinely want to find rhetoric here that works in justifying this point to all people, the place it would be most useful in, not just circlejerking the people who already think this. we can circlejerk all day. doesn’t accomplish anything. you completely are missing the point that arguing against the made point is futile because no true advocates of that point are actually here. does nothing interest you in why the midwest seems to hold that sentiment so dear? or are they just racist yokels to you? are you so blindingly upset by the idea of what they think that you can do nothing but tirade in response to it? jesus fucking christ there will be one singular issue in my life i “both sides” it for, and it’s this. zero fucking empathy from anyone these days.

second: that’s a valid point, this crowd would likely respond in turn with that exact argument. i guess my response in turn would be i know their argument is invalid, and you in turn giving me the proper rebuttal accomplishes nothing. it would be more conducive to explore why these people respond this way. is it not interesting to you why these people draw an equivalence between “animals” and “man” in the way they do? or are we just going to bookmark them as stupid and forget about it? jesus fucking christ.

the response here is my exact problem with rhetoric in the spaces i occupy. i don’t want to be binned in with the same right wing dumbasses i detest, obviously, but blindly lashing out against anything that looks like the enemy? despicable. there’s no thought or reason to it

i mean this isn’t really my stance but i’d be willing to play devil’s advocate: a human fetus is a child at conception, i just believe in a utilitarian way that allowing for abortion is more optimal for society than not; in the same way we are all okay with regularly performing castration on pets and animals, a practice typically viewed as horrible and gauche but that we accept for a utilitarian reason (i.e, we have all decided that getting your cat/dog “fixed” is acceptable because it makes the pet significantly easier to deal with behaviorally.) this is still castration tho, they suffer many of the same health problems that human beings do when getting prematurely castrated. remember when the whole internet was outraged over castratos from the 1800s and how terrible a practice it was? we allow that to happen daily to millions of pets, and no one bats an eye. why? because we decided it was simply better, more utilitarian. the same applies to being pro choice in this way, if that was your belief system. you can acknowledge that there do exist similarities between murder and abortion, it is intrinsic to the act. you can also hone your rhetoric beyond stupid regurgitation and realize there are more concise and precise reasons to think the “correct” things, and that in spite of you not walking the world this way yourself these rhetorical paths are still incredibly important for the means of outreach. you suffer from a metaphorical head up the ass, friend, at least that’s what it seems. people are so quick to dismiss and judge anything they’re not immediately aligned with now… the divisive nature of the commons will be the death of us