> “Every marginalized community knows what it’s like to be systematically deplatformed”, says Bevensee, who uses non-binary pronouns, pointing to the way in which groups such as sex workers have adopted platforms like Mastodon after finding themselves unable to advertise their services.
> But as Bevensee’s report shows, peer-to-peer platforms are a double-edged sword. “The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends,” they explain.
> “You know who really doesn’t understand it? The FBI,” Bevensee adds: “we’re talking about a technology that can’t be subpoenaed. It can’t be surveiled” and, in order to carry out remote surveillance of private chats, “you would have to back door every single device in the world”.
I really don't understand this person's view. On one hand, they claim platforms like this are helpful to marginalized communities who have been deplatformed on mainstream services. But then they point out that the FBI doesn't have unlimited access to decentralized platforms, as if it's a bad thing?
That looks like bad writing to me. Bevensee probably gets it, but the journalist who wrote the article does not and his personal view shows through selection of the quoted sentences.
I read that as illustrating that the FBI doesn't understand the value of the protection afforded by this technology because they are an organization that is by definition part of the power structure so they can't fathom not being able to solve their problems with bullets and jackboots and then have the courts take their side whereas the groups on the receiving end of the jackboots and bullets do understand the value.
I agree that the journalist isn't really "getting it" but I didn't see any issue with the selection of quotes.
They're saying it's a double-edged sword. The same features that protect marginalized communities also protect people planning to commit crimes. That's a long-understood dichotomy, one that US courts and law enforcement agencies have been grappling with for a long time.
That's not news. They've just found a person to say it on the record, so that it's a quote rather than a reporter stating "common knowledge". They found somebody who is in the former group but is very aware of the latter, so they're a good go-to to say the thing that we already knew.
What's news is that it's actually happening for certain groups in the US, in particular associated with major platforms removing groups associated with the last US President after a uniquely precarious and violent transition. We on HN knew that already, of course, but we live our lives steeped in this stuff.
> But as Bevensee’s report shows, peer-to-peer platforms are a double-edged sword. “The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends,” they explain.
> “You know who really doesn’t understand it? The FBI,” Bevensee adds: “we’re talking about a technology that can’t be subpoenaed. It can’t be surveiled” and, in order to carry out remote surveillance of private chats, “you would have to back door every single device in the world”.
I really don't understand this person's view. On one hand, they claim platforms like this are helpful to marginalized communities who have been deplatformed on mainstream services. But then they point out that the FBI doesn't have unlimited access to decentralized platforms, as if it's a bad thing?