The same thing happens, you descend into a echo chamber of people who already agree with you.

"...and we win by putting our time, skills, and members’ support where they will have the most impact. Right now, that means Bluesky, Mastodon, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube"

So pretty much all major sites except X. They are saying LinkedIn is more important to reach people than X, really?

This is BS to be honest, they don't like Musk, which is ok, I have no problem with that. And they are reconstructing a reason to leave.

Musk fired 90+% of Twitter, not just the human rights team.

So how do you know you've never changed someone's mind? Also, the opposite is just retreating to echo chambers where everyone agrees?

I personally don't care if EFF leaves X. However the message in the article does not line up, it's a bad decision and not justified by the reasons cited.

TBH echo chambers are just fine as long as you know you're in one.

I have peeked outside of my curated chamber and the people in there are completely batshit insane. Like objectively not following any sane logic or reason. And no amount of online discourse will not make them change their ways unless they WANT to change.

Agreed, it started with # of impressions declining... Maybe Kenyatta should have thought that less people care about what is posted? Or, there are other things to interest us vs 2018?

I've donated to EFF in the past, but this message will have me thinking to spend those resources somewhere else.

Thank you for providing some logic in an otherwise disruptive and manipulating post. Not to mention the incredible utility that cars give.

Not to say we shouldn't be bringing these numbers down, however that doesn't seem like's OPs goal which sounds like propaganda.

It's a horrible point, it assumes that the person being doxxed is the claim of the doxer.

There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what?

> There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what?

What harm is caused by this article, do you think? He is already incredibly wealthy, already has security, and many people already assumed he was Satoshi Nakamoto. Claiming that someone invented a world altering technology is neither libel, nor defamation, _even if it an intentional lie_. If it is not a lie, or is merely a mistake it _certainly_ is neither.

  > What harm is caused by this article, do you think?

Many people who are assumed to be wealthy have family members kidnapped. Even those who turn out to be not wealthy.

Doxing itself is the harm, if not 100% validated. The article is purely subjective.

It is explained in the article. You should read it.

The article is sensationalist, I actually read the policy, did you?

No, since I don't expect the article to be wrong. Sensationalist - yes, a little.

How much would you wager? It's easy to to say what you're saying because it's popular.

If you watch action and not social media bs, the probability is close to 0%.

Below answered well, but if you were that 1 guy, wouldn't you want 100+ spec ops looking for you?

No, I would absolutely not want 100s of guys blindly crawling over the dirt, I would want someone to pick up my satellite phone calls and send a couple helicopters.