Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: psycho's future

Posted by ert on November 1, 2018, at 0:16:18

In reply to Re: psycho's future, posted by alexandra_k on October 31, 2018, at 18:21:00

From 1st parties, therefore the whole world who uses internet, telegram guarantees a hundred percent protection. Because you can delete and edit your posts and when someone abstains or dies it will be automatically deleted. It actually also fulfills EU standards.

Of course you are still not protected against the fact that it can be downloaded for offline usage by the participants.

It is however not absolutely clear, if telegram provides a hundred percent protection from 3rd parties. Pavel Durov ( could theoretically possess a master key by that giving access to some customers for all data on the servers.
However, it had been told that Putin wanted to take down telegram and that maybe can suggest that his numerous hackers were not able to break telegrams cryptographic infrastructure.

For me personally, 1st party protection is more important. It is the same like facebook. People can delete their posts, but they do not mind so much if facebook sells the data hopefully anonymized to 3rd parties. If facebook users minded about giving 3rd parties access, most users would no more participate.

Psycho-babble however provides almost zero protection against 1s parties. After my request, Dr. bob deleted some very few location identifiers and redacted one sentence. I wanted to see some posts deleted, approx. 10-20%, and several phrases redacted.

It seems for me that some people stick to that old interface and the archive. Presumably some folks got depended on it. But that not only can be considered as a positive thing. I assume that it makes addicted and Dr. Robert C. Hsiung is not at all interested that someone gets cured and
Why should a participant be coerced, be acted against the will and be captivated for Dr. Robert C. Hsiung purpose?

In Hsiungs e-mails responses you can easily discern that his is not at all interested that anyone can and will leave that place by abstaining or deleting. In fact, there was no mutuality but truly was acted only for his interests. For the right holders and participants the contrary should be the case

Could you trust someone who lies and gives false promises?

Hsiungs response:

"But people who cut themselves off from the past can want to return to it later.
Which makes sense, it's a part of them, and cutting it off is a loss.
I should be able to get to these in a
couple weeks.
I'm confident we can work out a compromise that's mutually acceptable."




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:ert thread:1101600