The fact of the matter is that it is unwise to have both secure and insecure messaging side-by-side. Depending on where you live, this could translate to a simple mistake resulting in imprisonment or worse. It's very important that a "secure messaging app" only allow secure messaging.

You, like myself, probably live in an area where accidentally sending a message critical of the government over an insecure message would not have any tangible consequences, so perhaps you're weighing the convenience as more important due to lack of perspective.

[–] sarsaparilyptus@discuss.online 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

You literally made up an argument no one made in this thread.

I literally was not confined to this thread, which is blatantly obvious if you know how context works.

The fact of the matter is that it is unwise to have both secure and insecure messaging side-by-side.

Skill issue. If it's too hard for some people to pay attention to what they're doing and use a tool correctly, they can buy a Vsmile. This is all ignoring the fact that no human being could possibly fuck it up on Signal unless they're too illiterate to send text messages—or indeed use a cell phone—in the first place.

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I literally was not confined to this thread, which is blatantly obvious if you know how context works.

Making up an argument no one in the discussion has made is called the "Strawman Fallacy". Why should anyone in this thread care that you talked to someone (allegedly) that was so dense that they made a bad argument that you got frustrated with?

If it’s too hard for some people to pay attention to what they’re doing and use a tool correctly

Ah, so much hyperbole. If I'm successfully stripping all of it away, is seems that your argument is that it is impossible (P=0) to accidentally send an SMS message in Signal, thinking it was a secure message. Is that really your stance? Admittedly, there was a lot of hyperbole so I might have missed the actual point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[–] sarsaparilyptus@discuss.online 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"muh fallacy"

I didn't know this was reddit

I might have missed the actual point.

You deliberately missed the point, and seem to think I can't tell you're being deliberately obtuse.

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A fallacy is just pointing out that your argument isn't likely to arrive at the truth. As I explained, your "I met a dumb person and so all arguments against this are dumb" stance isn't useful, even if we agree you're not just making that all up.

I asked for clarification. Is that your stance? That it's fundamentally impossible that someone could accidentally send a SMS in Signal while thinking it is secured? I'm going to assume that you don't believe it's fundamentally impossible, so that mean your real stance is that if that happens and someone gets sent to jail or worse, that's a small price to pay for your convenience of not having to *checks notes* switch between two apps.

Do you see how your lack of perspective might be leading you to make a poor argument?

[–] sarsaparilyptus@discuss.online 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Being this obnoxious is practiced and you're clearly conversing in bad faith, that's the only response you get

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

What's bad faith about my argument? There's only two options: You believe what you typed and that it's impossible to make this mistake, or that you were using hyperbole, and you acknowledge that it is possible to make this mistake. These two options are both mutually exclusive and binary-- there can be no other stances. (and notably you haven't actually clarified which one you believe.)

I didn't make you choose to defend a poorly thought out stance. That's on you.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)