In response to this comment, I wrote:

It is not a security problem. It's actually more secure to send data via PGP-encrypted email than HTTPS (which can be MitMd).

I believe the problem is that not enough people are PGP capable to be interesting enough for banks to take the risk of doing something different. US banks are extremely risk averse. There are a couple banks outside the US that send PGP email but they don't deal with checks.

---

That comment was censored.

This original post in r/CrappyDesign2 was not censored, but the following two comments in that thread were censored:

---

In response to this comment, I wrote:

In terms of products we need to minimize to save the earth, pretty sure "Shirts" are waaaaaaay down the list.

The Extinction Rebellion movement has copyrighted their logo so that they can declare:

"We do not endorse or create any merchandise and we will pursue and prosecute anyone who does."

And rightly so. Eco-activists quite rightly oppose the foolish production of unneeded clothing that outlasts its useful purpose - even when it promotes their own agenda. Hopefully they sue these scumbags who are not only making XR clothes but they're also doing so with unsustainable material.

By comparison, the XR movement will long outlive the absurdly short Yang 2020 campaign.

You imply that there's a triage, whereby sensible clothing design is somehow in competition with other climate actions. It's nonsense. Did Yang save enough time on his shirt design to do something more important for climate change? What more important activity will not be accomplished if clothing is designed to be sustainable?

Even the shirts made congratulating super bowl losers get used somewhere.

Those are slightly less ridiculous because the intent is for them to be appreciated /after/ the event -- unlike a POTUS campaign involving ~20 candidates, 19 of whom won't make it to the general election.

In response to this comment, I wrote:

The design flaw is actually orthogonal to political bias. The problem is the political ideology of the politician is misaligned with the design, thus making the design unfit for purpose.

If this shirt were a Trump shirt, there would actually be no problem with the design as there would be no conflict of interest (the orange guy is a climate denier).

The design flaws are objectively evident regardless of our personal political leans.

---

I believe those posts were civil, and in fact more civil than the uncensored posts they are replying to.

The following was posted in r/Boycott_Boeing with the title "How to Boycott Boeing", which was censored, ironically. The moderator, who has his own post showing ways to avoid Boeing, is strangely intent on suppressing methods of boycotting other than his own.

---

Suppose you want to boycott Boeing. A Boeing aircraft is probably not on your shopping list, so you can't simply scratch Boeing off your shopping list as easily as you can with a company like Dell, for example. But there are some things you can do to reduce money that ultimately feeds Boeing.

Boeing has a duopoly with Airbus (detailed on wikipedia).

Most airlines own both Boeing and Airbus products, so it would be impractical to extend the boycott to all airlines that have Boeings in their inventory. But there is a bias. Some airlines have a strong majority of Boeings in their fleet compared to Airbus. Here is a sampling of some of the large carriers:

I recommend boycotting airlines with a Boeing inventory over ~40%. In addition to avoiding Boeing-dominant airlines, it's also a good idea to exclude flights on Boeing aircraft from your air travel search. Here's how:

1. Go to itasoftware.com
2. Fill out the search form as you normally would
3. Click on "Advanced routing codes", and noticed that a new box appears to enter outbound and return routing codes.
4. In all the advanced routing codes boxes, paste this:

/-aircraft t:703 t:707 t:70F t:70M t:717 t:721 t:722 t:727 t:72B t:72C t:72F t:72M t:72S t:72X t:72Y t:731 t:732 t:733 t:734 t:735 t:736 t:737 t:738 t:739 t:73C t:73F t:73G t:73H t:73J t:73M t:73W t:73X t:73Y t:741 t:742 t:743 t:744 t:747 t:74C t:74D t:74E t:74F t:74H t:74J t:74L t:74M t:74N t:74R t:74T t:74U t:74V t:74X t:74Y t:752 t:753 t:757 t:75F t:75M t:75T t:75W t:762 t:763 t:764 t:767 t:76F t:76W t:76X t:76Y t:772 t:773 t:777 t:77F t:77L t:77W t:788 t:789 t:B72

That will exclude all flights that make use of a Boeing aircraft from the search results. Why is that a good idea? A pilot is either a Boeing pilot or an Airbus pilot. Rarely is a pilot trained in both. Riding on a Boeing aircraft feeds Boeing pilots, who exclusively cator for Boeing products.

Commandline nerds who want to know how to derive that syntax may want to run this:

$ lynx -dump -nolist https://www.flugzeuginfo.net/table_accodes_iata_en.php | awk 'BEGIN{ORS=" ";} tolower($0) ~ /boeing/{print "t:"$1}'

Don't forget to prefix the /-aircraft .

Why boycott Boeing and General Electric?

See the rationale chart.

Boeing has made a deal with General Electric to ensure that some Boeing aircraft can only be fitted with GE engines. It turns out that General Electric (a former ALEC member) is itself very boycott-worthy anyway because it's involved with the same evils as Boeing. Also note that Airbus does not contribute to any of the problems in the rationale chart. It will not be immediately obvious to everyone why drug testing is such a bad idea. I suggest this article for more detail.

In response to this post by u/Poison1990 in r/unpopularopinion, I wrote:

+1 for humor. But in all seriousness, it is possible for travelers to boycott Boeing. See the How to Boycott Boeing article.

In response to this post, I wrote:

Rationale for boycotting Boeing (for me) is all the right-wing policy it supports financially as well as the politicians it backs."

If only we get them to make planes without a right wing ;)

In response to this post, I wrote:

Climate change is a scientific theory. The climate denial propaganda is to spin climate change as "just a theory" in hopes that most people are not knowledgeable enough to know the difference between a scientific theory and a "theory" in laypersons terms -- effectively making climate change sound as if someone is wildly guessing.

A scientific theory is very well supported by evidence from a significant collection of supported hypothesis and not even close to mere guesswork -- and guesswork cannot be passed off as a "scientific theory". Darwin's theory of evolution is also a scientific theory. Would you also regard the theory of evolution as "propaganda"?

So no, you cannot "both sides" this. Propaganda is on one side; science is on the other."

When viewed from a logged-out browser, the above three comments are reported "missing". I personally and exclusively can still see them when logged in. It's a bit insideous that this censorship occured in r/unpopularopinion, where we expect to be able to express these sort of ideas in a civil manner. The third post was censored mid-conversation with u/arewetodayman, which is quite disruptive as Reddit has effectively interefered with a conversation between two people.

You would think a forum meant to accommodate "unpopular opinions" would not suppress a civil boycott on Boeing, but a moderator there is censoring posts critical of Boeing.

I posted a comment similar to the censorship summary above in r/Boycott_Boeing, and was appalled that they censored this post (like cops, Reddit moderators side with each other regardless of integrity). Then I posted the same summary message to r/censorship_uncensored and was censored there. The moderator (u/nonpushoverconsumer) said they did not (and would not) censor that post. So the 3rd instance was censored by a robot.