> "We are not terminating the relationship but are setting clear boundaries on our relationship with Mullvad"
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.
That’s not what’s being said. It’s possible to support the freedom of anyone to say anything while excluding those whose beliefs are directly opposed to your goals from your organization.
if you exclude those who are opposed to you then you aren't supporting the right for anyone to say anything. Saying you support anyone saying anything but not allowing some people to say certain things is doublethink.
The most difficult part about supporting free speech is that you have to support the right for people to say things you disagree with.
Who exactly claimed to support anyone saying anything? Or are you claiming that supporting "freedom of speech" implies that one must support anyone saying anything?
Only anarchists support that. Nobody else supports absolute free speech. Not even the self described "free speech absolutists". I mean, they support only until they are not affected by it negatively.
Supporting another's right to something doesn't entail helping them exercise that right, and not facilitating their exercise doesn't call into question your support for the right itself.
Who said anything about not allowing people to say something?
In the real world, if a dickhead spouts garbage you tell them to fuck off. Doesn't mean that they can't open their mouth, just that you don't want them to do it near you. A huge proportion of people online who claim that their freedom of expression is being impinged upon are dickheads who were told to fuck off.
"Virtue signal" is a bad-faith term that means nothing other than its use as a cheap dismissal from people refusing to engage with the content of text, even short text like this. It's not a serious analysis, or a criticism of anything at all.
> "We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"
Notably, you are using quotes around something that is not a quote. Your interpretation of the text does not flow from the content of the text. Tor's stance is the bog-standard pro free-speech stance, as Hall wrote in characterization of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Here's an actual quote from the text. This is the _second sentence_.
> We are not terminating the relationship but are setting clear boundaries on our relationship with Mullvad.
It is clear that you did not even read the text of the short post you are dismissing as "virtue signaling"!
Tor is actually still collaborating with Mullvad and they are no longer "co-branding". They are releasing a statement of their position, which is normal, necessary, and expected.
They clarify that Tor is a political project. Security and privacy are human rights goals which necessarily contend with the political context of surveillance and authoritarianism they exist in. The co-founders support of a far-right party, and the implicit support for surveillance that comes with it, are of significant and immediate concern to those who use Tor and Mullvad.
I mean it's not clear how its supposed to be anything other than virtue signally.
The claim that an expressed belief is principally a kind of signalling means that its content isn't a sincerely held belief by anyone, but the act of expressing such belief serves to signal to some audience a certain non-propositional kind of information. Virtue signalling is a signalling to indicate virtue, and in many practical cases is taken to include tribal loyalty to a particular political project.
Jesus used the phrase, iirc, "praying in the streets":
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others
The observation that behaviour signals virtue is as old as the species itself.
Protestations to caring about human rights are, often enough, a modern sort of liberal prayer, practiced in the street or the public internet. And one imagines a vast amount of corp speech exists for signalling purposes (if not virtue,, then eg., to signal strength or growth, or trust). This entire posts exists to signal, it's unclear it expresses any sincere belief whatsoever.
> They explain it in the next sentence: "We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."
That's not an explanation. I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say everyone supports "human rights and freedoms," they just disagree on what those are.
Why are they opposing the mere rhetoric and not the ideas themselves? You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.
> You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.
You've never heard statements such as "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
That is, you don't draw a real distinction between repeatedly, loudly, and publicly calling someone a cotton-headed slop-spouting pig to whom no one should pay any mind and actively working to ensure that said pig is prohibited from spouting its slop?
> "We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"
You can defend someone's right to say something while disagreeing with it, not supporting it, and not wanting to be associated with it. By publishing that blog post, Tor isn't attacking free speech; they are participating in it. As are you, when you respond to them, and I, when I respond to you.
> They decided it's more important to virtue signal
I'm always a bit confused by people using the term "virtue signaling". Do you never try to make ethical decisions in your life? If you do, why is it so hard to believe others are, too?
The implication of the term “virtue signaling” is that you’re primarily seeking acclaim (or dodging criticism) by taking a given position, and that your position likely isn’t sincere.
This is pretty common in my experience, along with the inverse of “vice signaling” which you don’t hear about that much.
> The implication of the term “virtue signaling” is that you’re primarily seeking acclaim (or dodging criticism) by taking a given position, and that your position likely isn’t sincere.
Exactly. Now, who would think that other people's ethical decisions aren't made for sincere reasons?
Many people violate their own supposed principles when not in public view. (Like literally the moment they think they aren’t being watched.) Maybe you haven’t noticed it.
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.
>create dangerous situations (famously, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater), etc.
Every time someone brings this up, I feel obligated to mention:
1. The phrase came from a supreme court case that ruled an anti-war activist's leaflets were illegal, because it was promoting people to dodge the draft. I doubt many people arguing for free speech restrictions would support this case, even if they agree with the principle.
2. Practically speaking it's no longer relevant because it was overturned with "imminent lawless action"
> "We are not terminating the relationship but are setting clear boundaries on our relationship with Mullvad"
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.
That’s not what’s being said. It’s possible to support the freedom of anyone to say anything while excluding those whose beliefs are directly opposed to your goals from your organization.
if you exclude those who are opposed to you then you aren't supporting the right for anyone to say anything. Saying you support anyone saying anything but not allowing some people to say certain things is doublethink.
The most difficult part about supporting free speech is that you have to support the right for people to say things you disagree with.
Who exactly claimed to support anyone saying anything? Or are you claiming that supporting "freedom of speech" implies that one must support anyone saying anything?
Only anarchists support that. Nobody else supports absolute free speech. Not even the self described "free speech absolutists". I mean, they support only until they are not affected by it negatively.
Supporting another's right to something doesn't entail helping them exercise that right, and not facilitating their exercise doesn't call into question your support for the right itself.
Who said anything about not allowing people to say something?
In the real world, if a dickhead spouts garbage you tell them to fuck off. Doesn't mean that they can't open their mouth, just that you don't want them to do it near you. A huge proportion of people online who claim that their freedom of expression is being impinged upon are dickheads who were told to fuck off.
If you only support the right of people you agree with to speak freely, you don't support free speech.
They aren't even severing the relationship with the provider, let alone censoring the person.
It's "free speech", not "full agreement".
> They aren't even severing the relationship with the provider, let alone censoring the person.
Which is what makes it the hollow virtue signaling I said it was. I never claimed they were being censored.
I'm getting the impression you're the one who doesn't like free speech... just let it be...
"Virtue signal" is a bad-faith term that means nothing other than its use as a cheap dismissal from people refusing to engage with the content of text, even short text like this. It's not a serious analysis, or a criticism of anything at all.
> "We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"
Notably, you are using quotes around something that is not a quote. Your interpretation of the text does not flow from the content of the text. Tor's stance is the bog-standard pro free-speech stance, as Hall wrote in characterization of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Here's an actual quote from the text. This is the _second sentence_.
> We are not terminating the relationship but are setting clear boundaries on our relationship with Mullvad.
It is clear that you did not even read the text of the short post you are dismissing as "virtue signaling"!
Tor is actually still collaborating with Mullvad and they are no longer "co-branding". They are releasing a statement of their position, which is normal, necessary, and expected.
They clarify that Tor is a political project. Security and privacy are human rights goals which necessarily contend with the political context of surveillance and authoritarianism they exist in. The co-founders support of a far-right party, and the implicit support for surveillance that comes with it, are of significant and immediate concern to those who use Tor and Mullvad.
I mean it's not clear how its supposed to be anything other than virtue signally.
The claim that an expressed belief is principally a kind of signalling means that its content isn't a sincerely held belief by anyone, but the act of expressing such belief serves to signal to some audience a certain non-propositional kind of information. Virtue signalling is a signalling to indicate virtue, and in many practical cases is taken to include tribal loyalty to a particular political project.
Jesus used the phrase, iirc, "praying in the streets":
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others
The observation that behaviour signals virtue is as old as the species itself.
Protestations to caring about human rights are, often enough, a modern sort of liberal prayer, practiced in the street or the public internet. And one imagines a vast amount of corp speech exists for signalling purposes (if not virtue,, then eg., to signal strength or growth, or trust). This entire posts exists to signal, it's unclear it expresses any sincere belief whatsoever.
They explain it in the next sentence: "We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."
> They explain it in the next sentence: "We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."
That's not an explanation. I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say everyone supports "human rights and freedoms," they just disagree on what those are.
> They explain it in the next sentence: "We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."
Except they are clearly taking a stance in opposition to Swedes' freedom to decide how they want their country to be governed.
Why are they opposing the mere rhetoric and not the ideas themselves? You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.
> You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.
You've never heard statements such as "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
That is, you don't draw a real distinction between repeatedly, loudly, and publicly calling someone a cotton-headed slop-spouting pig to whom no one should pay any mind and actively working to ensure that said pig is prohibited from spouting its slop?
> "We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"
You can defend someone's right to say something while disagreeing with it, not supporting it, and not wanting to be associated with it. By publishing that blog post, Tor isn't attacking free speech; they are participating in it. As are you, when you respond to them, and I, when I respond to you.
> They decided it's more important to virtue signal
I'm always a bit confused by people using the term "virtue signaling". Do you never try to make ethical decisions in your life? If you do, why is it so hard to believe others are, too?
The implication of the term “virtue signaling” is that you’re primarily seeking acclaim (or dodging criticism) by taking a given position, and that your position likely isn’t sincere.
This is pretty common in my experience, along with the inverse of “vice signaling” which you don’t hear about that much.
> The implication of the term “virtue signaling” is that you’re primarily seeking acclaim (or dodging criticism) by taking a given position, and that your position likely isn’t sincere.
Exactly. Now, who would think that other people's ethical decisions aren't made for sincere reasons?
Many people violate their own supposed principles when not in public view. (Like literally the moment they think they aren’t being watched.) Maybe you haven’t noticed it.
Freedom of expression is not a right to be listened to or to be agreed with.
As it happens, Tor's aim is that they don't know who you are or what you say!
> "... unless it's speech we disagree with"
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.
>create dangerous situations (famously, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater), etc.
Every time someone brings this up, I feel obligated to mention:
1. The phrase came from a supreme court case that ruled an anti-war activist's leaflets were illegal, because it was promoting people to dodge the draft. I doubt many people arguing for free speech restrictions would support this case, even if they agree with the principle.
2. Practically speaking it's no longer relevant because it was overturned with "imminent lawless action"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
Also, the cry of "fire" in question: https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/world-war-i-anti-dra...