ToTok, an Emirati messaging app, is the latest escalation of a digital arms race
Here&#x27;s my problem:<p>Let&#x27;s suppose that I, or anyone else that reads Hacker News (like many of the YCombinator companies) creates an app (as many of them have), and this app becomes very popular in foreign countries, and goes on to get tons of users in those foreign countries...<p>OK, now let&#x27;s suppose that a foreign newspaper, like the New York times, but a foreign version of that -- all of a sudden prints an article like this one, alleging, but not showing a comprehensive proof (like the ones in mathematics or logic) that there are all kinds of things unspeakably wrong with the app...<p>Well... maybe all of those things are true, but maybe they aren&#x27;t...<p>How would I, as the end-user of such an app -- know for sure?<p>If the article isn&#x27;t true... think of the gigantic swath of economic damage that would be caused by an article like this...<p>And if the article is true... well, it could be argued that you&#x27;ve done a great thing, and saved countless users&#x27; privacy rights...<p>That&#x27;s quite the dichotomy of potential outcomes, based on what the truth of the matter actually is...<p>So here&#x27;s my question to the NYT: In this era of Fake News (which you are no doubt aware of!), how do I prove to myself (as someone who is 50&#x2F;50, that is, a skeptic who is willing to believe, if the proper set of facts is presented to them) that what you&#x27;re saying is true?<p>?<p>Here are two things for the NYT to think about:<p>&quot;Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit&quot;<p>The burden of proof lays on he who makes the claim<p>and<p>&quot;Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence&quot;
-Carl Sagan<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sagan_standard" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sagan_standard</a><p>Saying that this stuff is true because the Intelligence Community says that it&#x27;s true -- is not unlike making an &quot;Argument to&#x2F;from Authority&quot;:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Argument_from_authority" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Argument_from_authority</a><p>I don&#x27;t know who the Intelligence Community is (much like I don&#x27;t know who other abstract entities are like &quot;China&quot; or even the &quot;U.S.&quot; are)  I don&#x27;t know who that is!<p>I do know who a guy named &quot;John Smith&quot; is, and I do know that if John Smith raises his right hand in a court of law and under oath promises to &quot;tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury&quot;, then John Smith&#x27;s claim, when he makes it under those circumstances, carries a whole lot more weight (to me) than the claims of any nameless, faceless, unaccountable organization -- by whatever name they go by...<p>Due Process (enshrined in our Constitution, which the media does not seem to give these days to all parties, despite the Constitution giving them their right of Free Speech) presumes innocence until proven guilty, in a court of law!<p>Now, all of that being said... I am willing to believe this article -- but I require a higher standard of proof...