• SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or they could have… You know, foreseen their responsibility in safeguarding their users data, implemented end to end encryption and not mishandled their users data in the first place.

    Data privacy and human rights are my favored political positions to be fair, so I do view the acts of the government and Meta to be immoral. And as such, I would say companies and governments imposing immoral laws is dangerous (and not in an asanine way).

    I’m not calling for companies to defy the law to support my position anyway. I’m calling for companies to do the right thing and not store this kind of data in the first place. And I’m saying the fact that Threads does is wrong, and makes the platform not worth using regardless of if they were complying with a court order or not.

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      All right, fair enough, but I still think questions about whether or not Meta handed over the data in response to a legally enforceable request from the government vs. as a voluntary act based on their board’s political views or something is a valid one. Meta doing it on their own certainly is politically-motivated “snitching,” but if they’re just complying with a government order, then the problem lies more with the government in this instance than with Meta.

      I’d like to hope that in the future we ban these sorts of data collection things, but…I’m pretty pessimistic when it comes to this sort of thing.