this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
98 points (98.0% liked)
Privacy
2831 readers
623 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd say that the principal claim is that they can't see your messages and that they have no incriminating data on you. No judge can order them to hand over your data and incriminate you because they don't have that data. What exactly is the very little data they have is less important.
Thats re-interpreting what they said to be something defensible; but it isn't what they said. What they said was specific, and isn't, afaik, supported by any evidence. Its also the very first thing they said. Their main point. The primary point. Not some other thing they didn't say, but the very first, and very specific thing they said first.
Re-interpreting what people say to support our bias is both de-constructive when real security concerns are on the line, disingenuous, and shows a lack of reading comprehension.
Ok.