I understand that TOR is big and professional and all, but why does this read like a press statement of every tech corp under the sun? Do we have to talk like this?
"We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"
They decided it's more important to virtue signal their political ideology than actually working toward a shared goal of security and privacy.
The most difficult part about supporting free speech is that you have to support the right for people to say things you disagree with.
Organizations that support the right of free speech always have to come to grips with the reality that supporting the right of free speech necessarily involves supporting the right of others to say things that the organization and/or the individuals in the organization didagree with.
Tor isn't the first such organization to have to draw distinctions between the principles it espouses and the parties it encounters, nor will it be the last.
This type of statement is not an invalidation of one's own principles, it is simply bringing clarity and focus to them. Tor advocates for freedom of speech, not for everything that others use that freedom to say.
Of course, Tor's partnerships are different than the content distributed through it's network, but I still find it a bit ironic.
> We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms.
That isn't the standard. The OP addresses an unavoidable, fundamental paradox of freedom: Someone can use their freedom to limit the freedoms of others - if we support that person's freedom, are we supporting freedom or oppression? Are we free to oppress others?
The philosopher Karl Popper famously addressed this issue. Here are a couple more ways to think about it:
* Freedom as a social contract: I support your freedom and you support mine. If I support yours and you take away mine, you've violated the contract and it's void.
* In a society built on freedom, those who use their freedom to take away others' freedom are parasites on society.
Arguably, the only speech not to tolerate is intolerance.
But that's all philosophy. Practically, nobody believes any freedom is absolute. Freedom of speech is revered and in the first amendement in the US Constitution, but nobody thinks it's absolute: you can't slander people, defraud them, threaten them, create dangerous situations (famously, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater), etc.
As it happens, Tor's aim is that they don't know who you are or what you say!
JohnTHaller•55m ago
firefax•51m ago
Thank you for naming the party donated to.
It's a shame that refusing to consort with fascists is conflated with "being political".
One of the reasons I left so called "civil" society is that for lack of a better phrasing I often found the tent to be too big.
MC995•45m ago
It's because they are a political party, and he was donating to it. There's no better definition of being punished for a political opinion than being punished to donating to a legitimate party.
And their not "fascists", it's a Swedish nationalist party. Naming everything you don't like as "fascist" is a quick way to have your opinion dismissed as crazy.
deadbunny•43m ago
BAM-DevCrew•29m ago
jeltz•39m ago
mmooss•11m ago
cubefox•13m ago