Yes, those poor persecuted "whites". With the minorities running the U.S. now, it's very dangerous for us. I narrowly avoided being sent to one of the "whites" concentration camps myself.
This is certainly true. The "race of users" isn't being "police[d]". It is just a reflection of the subject matter of HN and a reflection of the tech field in general.
You answered your own question. No, serious threats do not use Facebook Messenger. The reason it's limited deploy is technical (for now) not caging. Metadata is more important than content. They will always have the metadata.
Do you enjoy Verizon press releases? "Miles ran", "houses passed". Industry doublespeak. NYC residents invested those billions via rate hikes the PUC granted to Verizon!! It was subsidized even though Verizon claims otherwise. And they didn't deliver.
Not going to comment on the efficacy of "used" versus "user" in RMS' argument here. However, your comparison to "Democrap", etc. doesn't seem to fit here very well. The former is a shorthand for his entire argument and technically correct. Facebook "users" are "used" by Facebook. This is their business model. The latter is just simple name calling serving no useful purpose.
This is the most bizarre thing I've heard. People want Snapchat, Instagram. People have LinkedIn. No one wants it. It's a dinosaur. People using it actively just haven't realized it's dead already.
LinkedIn at 10% of Facebook's cap is super over valued. It's pure spam. Everyone is suggesting Microsoft will improve, add features! It would have been better and cheaper to create from scratch. LinkedIn exists in a space that none of the big player care to enter seriously.
You do realize that Stuxnet required a failure of physical security. Either an agent inserted intentionally via USB or an employee inserted a compromised USB unwillingly. Neither should happen in a secure facility.
The paper shows simple yet sophisticated POC. The simplicity is the scary part. BTW, do you think the University of Michigan spends more on research than the NSA, GCHQ, BND, DGSE, 3PLA, etc.
No. If your job is to secure systems there is zero difference. If other than primary has key, it's not secure. If you can break in, it's not secure. Legal arguments are irrelevant.
I really hope you're not involved with securing sensitive systems. This is the nightmare right here. Who cares about hardened a OS when the hardware is compromised in a way that is virtually undetectable. Very few have the resources to verify every item on the board and its purpose. The fact that this is even possible is a problem.