You've quoted out of context, eliminating:

"The state has no business listening in on private citizen's communication."

So yes, the concept of privacy is so primary that the it requires an entire legal framework for the state to listen in.

In terms of the rest of your post, even though you quoted out of context, what you're saying is fine. But the people noticing things on the street, have nothing to do with those who maintain the roads. You really don't want corporations to have algorithms which mean they have to report trigger words to the police or state.

Instead, as I said, empower the parents. Legal guardians. It's their job to watch.

▲

bluegatty 7 hours ago | parent [-]

" You really don't want corporations to have algorithms which mean they have to report trigger words to the police or state"

They already do.

The entire financial system, all of social media, and many organizations past a certain size.

I did not quote out of context - the commenter was missattributing context.

	▲	b112 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I absolutely did not misattribute my own context, whatever that action means. And some things are reported, others are not, point being, yes E2E isn't reported for obvious reasons. Loads of stuff isn't reported on social media; in fact, that's the absurd complaint against Meta! And regardless of what is done now, that doesn't mean we want it. I didn't say it is or isn't done, I said "You really don't" want that. The more encroachment in that realm, the less free a people are.