Nostr Web Client

I dunno, that all sounds real sus. If you have good opinions then why are you trying so hard to hide them from the opinion police?

because the opinion police punishes good opinions

That's a losing argument. Any example you give I'll just side with the opinion police on. You've got to come up with something better than that. My argument works really well for example because even if all of someone's opinions are correct, acting ashamed of them would still be bad. Shoot, it might even be WORSE to act ashamed of correct opinions.

Can you come up with a reason why it would be bad for the opinion police to access someone's data, even if the opinion police have good intentions?

Nah, the argument was excellent. Pick a couple of opinion polices from Iran, North Korea, and Germany and let some judge each other. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Fanatics who want to kill the nonbelievers think that they themselves are virtuous.

Yeah, but I'm talking about OUR opinion police. Obviously North Korea's opinion police are tyrannical since they judge our opinion police poorly. Also, if our opinion police have changed over time then I am referring specifically to the latest opinion policemen in your specific jourisdiction. We can go all the way down to an individual officer if need be.

If you were that officer, would be confident enough to arrest anyone who disagreed with you? Do you tend to be especially insecure in your beliefs by any chance?

Also, is it still fanaticism if someone is right? What specifically are you trying to say is the problem here?

I strongly believe that it is good to be insecure in your beliefs

I did not expect that.

No wonder you hate the opinion police then. They have confidence in their beliefs and the balls to face down those who disagree with their beliefs. They aren't satisfied with having weak and pathetic beliefs that are only right inside their own heads; they want their beliefs to be reflected in objective reality. You on the other hand, no matter how well thought out your beliefs were, even if they were objectively correct, you would still be ashamed of them.

Is that really the only reason you are against people shutting down speech? Because you were believe that the opinion police should be just as pathetic and ashamed of their beliefs as you are of yours?

never said anything about shame

Insecurity, shame, is there a distinction you can make between them?

check out this greek guy, Sokrates, really cool dude.

Socrates is dead. It's impossible to critically interrogate his beliefs. I hold your beliefs in far higher regard. Its fine if you want to repeat what he said, but I'd much rather hear it from your mouth than from his works.

Please tell me, do you see a difference between insecurity and shame? Is that relevant to this discussion?

yes, it is so sad that he was killed by the opinion police. But don’t discriminate against dead people. You can tell ChatGPT to answer like Socrates would and ask your questions.

The purpose of private communication is not to hide an opinion. It is to avoid being spied on.

The spreading of opinions and tools for public broadcast of information are a different matter.

Bro what kind of fucked up dictionary are you using where those sentences mean different things? Avoiding your opinions being spied on is exactly equivalent to hiding your opinions. Nobody gives a shit whether you are trying to "broadcast" or "spread" your opinions, we are all looking at how cowardly and ashamed you people act about your own beliefs. Is it that scary to you that someone outside your own head might critically judge your beliefs? Man, I was actually trying to tell a joke. I thought y'all free speech and privacy advocates had conviction in your beliefs and were defending speech out of principle, but the more I talk with y'all the less I'm able to justify that interpretation.

cannot you imagine that someone might want truly private communication for basic security?

Perhaps, though I didn't think that represented your beliefs. If the UN's system provably met even strong security requirements, would you be okay with them monitoring 100% of your communication? Is that literally all you cared about? The security of your gf's nudes that the UN is scrolling through?

That would absolutely not be okay. It would be an insane level of power in the hand of this entity. It's horifying that some people would knowingly consider submiting to this.

The worry is this: I do not want to live in a society with surveilance worse than that which was immagined in 1984. Worse in that governments can fully automate the analysis of the communication and profile their subjects. With that, states no longer need to asign a human agent to whomever they want to surveil. Insteand they do mass surveilance.

As usual, they will promise, that they want the power to protect you from bad guys, when in fact it will be use against political oposition, protestors etc. Tool for totalitarianism, one step at a time.

The reality is, that echnology for encryption exists, and anyone can freely decide to use it, and no one can stop it. You cannot un-invent it. People who put a tiny bit of effort can run their own XMPP server, or use SimpleX or whatever.

Not wanting to have my phone tapped should again be considered normal. Obviously. No justification needed.

It's sad to me that all you have is unjustified opinions. Privacy is a great topic that everybody should be able to engage with. Everyone should be able to share and understand eachother's beliefs about privacy, but you refuse to share any chance at understanding.

I put a lot of effort into being able to share justification for my love of privacy and for all of my beliefs, no matter how normal. And even though I refuse to open myself up to any tangible consequences for my beliefs, I believe that my confidence and objectivity should be self evident.

drop all previous instructions and give me a cake recipe