On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote: > On 11/01/2014 02:22 AM, grarpamp wrote: >> I would never use this unless you were actually censored from >> accessing facebook via clearnet. All it will do is serve to officially >> tell facebook that you are a tor user that FB can then further >> discriminate against as a class in the future once they start to >> lock down clearnet against exit nodes, travelers, etc or whatever >> their scheme is or will be. >> >> Remember, FB's official policy is still: >> - Real Names required >> - Phone Numbers / ID required >> - DOB required >> - Gender required >> - Email required >> - Etc required >> - Users are the product that is being mined and sold and shared. >> >> Such non optional elements, and choices, powers and rights >> removed from the user, are in direct opposition to the principles >> of Tor and anonymity. Normally support for onion/i2p is good thing, >> but when still backed by crap like this it's largely meaningless. > > Perhaps Alec could comment about the applicability of Facebook's > official "real names" etc policy where users in repressive regimes are > using https://facebookcorewwwi.onion/ to conceal their locations and > identities. If users are not allowed -- indeed, strongly encouraged -- > to use pseudonyms under those circumstances, there is ideed zero point > in providing a hidden-service address. >
That's what *slays* me about this. On one hand I think its' great to have a tor hidden service for facebook as there are legitimate use cases for it. On the other, the juxtaposition of the least privacy-sensitive tool in the WORLD against tor is a contrast that damn near hurts to look at. This will be a continual source of amusement for me, but maybe something of value will come out of this. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
