Real criminal organizations will know that proprietary software is less secure than open-source stuff.

A proper criminal should use Signal or another open-source e2ee messenger, and so should you.

(Signal is blocked in Russia)

In this particular case literally all I want is to be able to talk to my family members without risking the FSB arresting them for calling the “Special Military Operation” a war in a phone call. If using WhatsApp for texting isn’t banned alongside phone calls, that is halfway okay for discussions of that nature, and I’ll have to watch my tongue if I call them over the Roskomnadzor-Approved ™ apps.

The trouble with those of course is that they don’t always work well with non-Russian phone numbers (because of course fucking everything needs my number nowadays). And you have to hope they’re not megaspyware. I am NOT downloading fucking MAX.

I will assume that you are saying that people should not be using Signal based on this (e.g. the United States are sliding into fascism and may fuck over Signal).

What would you suggest then? PGP? Ngl I’m happy that GnuPG is introducing post-quantum encryption in the new releases but I’m talking about calling my grandma.

It means that making phone calls with either will likely soon become impossible for those with a Russian Internet connection.

People should be using Signal, which is also blocked.

I’m now frantically trying to cook up some way to be able to call my family back there. A VPN is of course an option, but also illegal.

To be charitable I think our fellow poster meant that Zionists went from at least some modesty to a full embrace of revisionist Zionism. To further the Nazi analogy, it would be like going from Italian fascism to Nazism.

Because liberalism is a hypocritical ideology.

The USA built itself off genocide and colonialism and has spent the last three centuries expanding its empire to every continent (and has long-since been an attack dog for Israel).

France endorsed liberty, equality, and fraternity at home and horrors abroad in Haiti and Algeria.

To the credit of the Liberal Party, they were much less imperialist than the Whigs they derived from or Tories. This is not to say that they were truly opposed to imperialism. Cecil Rhodes was a Liberal.

In all of these cases, the colonial adventures did not occur despite liberalism but were justified by it. We must bring enlightened civilization to the savages, you see. Locke and Mill, two foundational British figures of liberalism, were both supporters of colonialism.