Cuz this is some real honeypot-lookin stuff right here and makes me question if they're deeply unserious about cybersecurity and protecting their members.
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
40 points (97.6% liked)
chat
8556 readers
192 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think you're really wrong, but this really just cements that people with dependents they can't risk don't belong in the PSL.
On your above/underground cadre note, wouldn't any underground cadre at one point have been part of the aboveground group, and would thus be caught in any roundup of the registered party members?
I read a bit about the French Resistance in WW2 recently, and it seems like they had a network of hundreds rolled up basically because they kept paper membership rolls.
Not necessarily. There were members of the BLA who were not members of the BPP.
I didn't know that, thank you for sharing!