zlacker

To me, calling something a "red line" implies that there's near-universal agreement that something is bad (or, at least, on the proper weighing of the underlying values: here, freedom from surveillance vs. law enforcement).

>>tptace+(OP)
It's an interesting point.

I see your point that something cannot be a red line if it has significant support. Because a red line is something that people universally agree is unacceptable, and if there is even a significant minority who disagree then it's not universal.

Equally, for any horrible thing you will find a minority who support it. Hitler certainl had wide support for deporting Jews, if not worse. Does that mean it can't be a red line? In fact there is no point having red lines that are universally accepted, because they are already, well, universally accepted. There is little point stating that killing babies and eating their flesh whil livestreaming is a red line because no one wants to do it.

I don't have a view on Flock itself.

>>rich_s+gB
I'm not a fan. But I think if people want to seriously organize against its use, they need to be honest and empathetic about what its supporters are looking to achieve. You tell me if the threads on this story are showing that.

>>rich_s+gB
> Because a red line is something that people universally agree is unacceptable

No? Just those who are decisionally relevant. Most people are incapable of civic action, for example.

>>tptace+(OP)
I've never heard of the phrase requiring having a near-universal agreement before.

And I wouldn't say that's a widely held definition. For example:

> The red line, or "to cross the red line", is a phrase used worldwide to mean a figurative point of no return or line in the sand, or "the fastest, farthest, or highest point or degree considered safe." [0]

If adopting these practices means they stick around and people will always argue for bringing them back if we stop... We've crossed the point of no return.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_line_(phrase)