I think this specific connection to religion is spot-on
and therefore appropriate. He indirectly highlights the
strong connection between humans feeling being watched
and their behaviour, and thus why privacy is important.

I can't say I have traveled the world. In fact, I've only traveled to three countries in my lifetime... two of which are the USA and Canada.

But I have traveled to North Carolina as well as Southern Virginia. I've traveled to Texas and have participated in Methodist Weddings. I have entered said churches and have (accidentally) insulted them by refusing to partake in their rites. (I seriously was just there to see a friend, lol. Gosh... that was awkward).

I have been to multiple Churches, Cathedrals, and Synagogues across this country and have talked to Priests, Ministers, Rabbis. I have devout Muslims who have married into my extended family who would take huge offense at the statement as well. (Depictions of Allah / God are not welcome in that culture... the cartoon is immediately offensive to them)

I can tell you that they in general will find the above comment unnecessarily disparaging, and a non-starter for the start of the talk. I've met people who would have walked out of the talk as soon as that line would have come up.

Which is a shame, because southern conservatism / libertarianism (Rand Paul) is a strong ally in the fight for online privacy. They're a touch religious though, so you definitely need to be cognizant of their viewpoints.

Aral Balkan's opening words immediately isolate our otherwise allies and turn them against us. This is a non-starter in my book. The cause of online privacy is too important for religious politics / bickering to get in the way of things.

These disgusting words are not Aral Balkan's, but Mark
Zuckerberg's. He cynically repeats them to make it as
clear as possible how the people in power at these
companies think about you. They see you as dumb fucks
if you entrust them with your data. This is extremely
noteworthy.

I appreciate your trust in Aral Balkan. But show the talk to someone who disagrees with us on these privacy grounds. "Red Pill" your mom, or just a friend who isn't into these privacy rights politics.

I understand that is what he's _trying_ to say. But he says it in such a way that it is easy to misinterpret.

You aren't misinterpreting it because you agree with him. But if you start off hostile (ie: if an especially religious man was sitting in the audience at the beginning), they'll interpret these words as hostile later in the speech.

A speech is communication. And good communication requires you to understand different perspectives. The fact remains: Aral Balkan's speech is one-sided. It preaches to the choir. The only people who will find him agreeable are the people who already agree with him before he started his speech!

Which makes his speech useless in my perspective. A good speech brings together different people, unites the cause with unlikely allies and provides us a constituency for change. We live in a Democracy, if we can convince enough other people to agree with our privacy concerns, the Politicians will be forced to change the laws towards our favor.

I think I can say that Aral Balkan's speech is decent at rallying the base. But my standards are higher than that: almost anyone can rally the base. The mark of a good speech is one that gains allies to the cause.

I think you misunderstand him.

I understand him perfectly. I'm trying to argue that he's easy to misunderstand.