They’re a troll, don’t feed them.

Coulda fooled me since you’re spouting conservative American propaganda.

ROFLMAO. This bloke. Fucking Americans.

We absolutely see lots of news about these violent communist uprisings. Definitely not something you’re imagining. Not at all.

I’d rather set the three of them up as a human centipede, then have the first drink bleach.

Lol, he’s a terrible businessman because he’s so dumb. He’s a decent con artist and has always had enough family money to bounce back from his many failures.

You’re responding to a follow-up comment from a different user who is disagreeing with the first comment as if they’re the author of the original comment and their clear dissent is actually them agreeing with themselves somehow. Of course, you’re arguing with anyone who points out you’re confused.

Literal fucking insanity, mate.

Wow indeed. We’re only a few comments deep, so you can see the comment. This one:

Continuing the analogy, government agencies can absolutely eavesdrop on in-person conversations unless you expend significant resources to prevent it. This is exactly what I believe will happen - organized crime will develop alternate methods the government can’t access while these backdoors are used to monitor less advanced criminals and normal people.

I challenge you to show where it suggests a “want for uncompromising privacy is a US only thing.” Then point out where they show support for government access to communications.

I’m telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it’s not

But their comment doesn’t say or suggest that.

and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.

And they don’t say anything about the compromises except that they’d be used for spying on citizenry.

This isn’t my fight, I saw you were confused and thought I’d help. My mistake, you really are one of those double down or die types.

Telling someone who says government access will be used to spy on citizens but will be useless for combating serious crime that they want telescreens, a fictitious device used for government spying, doesn’t make any sense. Either you don’t know what a telescreen is, you have poor reading comprehension, or you’re a fairly clever troll. Maybe some of all the above.

I think you do, you just misread their comment.

Give it 52 years and we’ll have more cool stuff, plus 300% more ads.

We all float down here 💩💩💩

I barely consider her a person.

If it’s so obvious, why are you unable to provide a single example?

It’s fun asking them to prove it. They never seem to be able to, as this absolute broomstick has again shown.

So you can’t answer. I’m not even from the US and know better. What’s your excuse?

What? When?

Every Luigi needs a Mario.