Translation: this particular user wants to make different privacy choices than the rest and pretends that we should philosophically follow.

All because Big Corp does anti open software/anti privacy thing.

Give me a break.

These platitudes ring like propaganda. I do what I want with my computer and data. You don't get to choose to "connect with me".

> Beyond individualism

To authoritarianism.

It's fine if the author wants to do all this but the kind of "we should all do X, which goes against your privacy/data/control beliefs because it's for our greater good" sounds so Rich CEO that knows better, kind of talk.

▲

drew_lytle 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think collective, democratic ownership is kind of the opposite of authoritarianism, right haha? But I agree choice is important! Thanks for your comment!

	▲	isaacremuant 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Define collective democratic ownership and how it conflicts with the rights of individuals. Why does the collective good need to be the future instead "get your hands of my data". Don't you see there's no one true collective and that politics corrupt? Every time a party in a democracy wins some group claims they're evil and wrong and suddenly it is not 'democratic'. They will label things along partisan lines whereas I'm making the point of protecting the individual no matter what. We do agree that choice is important so the inflammatory "no future" to one of those choices is a contradiction if you actually want to preserve it.