4 ms·

> You're really saying that the way to change it is to simply wait, which is a complete disservice to anybody persecuted in the past, or anybody being persecute

by imgabe 11y ago

> You're really saying that the way to change it is to simply wait, which is a complete disservice to anybody persecuted in the past, or anybody being persecuted today for things that are "still" unpopular. That is not at all what I'm saying. The many activists for civil rights did not simply "wait". They protested, they petitioned, and most importantly, they made it very publicly known who they were and why and how they were being oppressed. Literally, the exact opposite of being private. Most normal people (the 80% in your example) don't really want to be involved in oppressing or abusing anyone. It's easy for them to let it happen if they don't know the people it's happening to and see them as real human beings, but that's what happens so long as the main concern is maintaining privacy. Look at what's happened since being gay has gone from private, closely guarded information to generally publicly available, or at least not explicitly hidden. Are gay people more oppressed or less oppressed now?

mindslight 11y ago
> normal people (the 80% in your example) don't really want to be involved in oppressing or abusing anyone Salem Village? Persecution of hackers (ongoing)? Drug hysteria (ongoing)? "Terrorism" (ongoing)? Heck, the privacy issue is itself an instance. Even if we disagree about the utility of privacy, surely you should accept that it could have value to others! In my experience, people are quite ready to support draconian "justice" against nonconforming behavior. They don't "see them as real human beings" because the victims are dehumanized as a different tribe. Direct violence based on traditional distinctions seems to be fading, but I'm not going to bet the farm based on short-term history. The general phenomenon certainly has found new avenues - eg the recent trend of bullying via social media. If you haven't developed the intuition that group dynamics can turn horribly wrong, then I don't know how I could convince you that being able to hide from the majority is a valuable thing. Most people will not understand this - themselves being part of the oppressive majority (see: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2346 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2346). No worries, I'll continue to preserve my privacy in every way possible!
- imgabe 11y ago
  > They don't "see them as real human beings" because the victims are dehumanized as a different tribe. Exactly. And the way to counteract this is by speaking up and showing them that the victims are real people. Not by hiding the victims. As long as they never see or hear about or meet any real person that's a member of the oppressed class, they can maintain the illusion that they are "others". It's easy for someone to hate "gays" as an abstract notion. It's a lot harder to hate your gay neighbor Fred, who waves hello in the morning and asks how your day is going and picks up the mail for you when you're out of town. Maybe it's valuable in the short term for some individuals to be able to hide, but it only slows down the progress overall. Aside from that, my main point is that, valuable or not, hiding is not going to be an option. Digital information doesn't stay in one place. Even if you think it's really wrong that it doesn't, it still doesn't. Music companies think it's really wrong that people can share copies of music files, but that hasn't stopped it from happening. Ignoring the reality of it and trying to legislate it away hasn't stopped it. It won't stop companies/governments from sharing information about you either. So, if that's what you're relying on to keep you safe, you're not going to be safe.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    > And the way to counteract this is by speaking up and showing them that the victims are real people How's that been working out for hard drug users, file sharers, and non-molesting pedophiles? > hiding is not going to be an option This is such an utterly defeatist conclusion. There will always be some types of information that are impossible to keep private and some that will be easy to, but there's a huge middleground that requires organization and resources (eg traffic cameras, credit bureaus) to collect, aggregate, and exploit. The entities currently doing are centralized, so they could easily be put out of business. Individual actions and peers will only leak certain things through eg mass photos, and to presuppose omniscience on the part of a would-be decentralized reconstructor is to ignore how that capability would be bootstrapped - the economic advantage from private surveillance that currently goes unregulated. Obviously the existing power structures have a lot more to gain by developing surveillance than prohibiting it. But a decently secured computer containing one's private files is a shining beacon of a Schelling point as well. I really don't see the point of capitulating early and backfitting it into a philosophy of openness. I guarantee our rulers won't be quick to do so either.

by imgabe 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago

> normal people (the 80% in your example) don't really want to be involved in oppressing or abusing anyone Salem Village? Persecution of hackers (ongoing)? Drug hysteria (ongoing)? "Terrorism" (ongoing)? Heck, the privacy issue is itself an instance. Even if we disagree about the utility of privacy, surely you should accept that it could have value to others! In my experience, people are quite ready to support draconian "justice" against nonconforming behavior. They don't "see them as real human beings" because the victims are dehumanized as a different tribe. Direct violence based on traditional distinctions seems to be fading, but I'm not going to bet the farm based on short-term history. The general phenomenon certainly has found new avenues - eg the recent trend of bullying via social media. If you haven't developed the intuition that group dynamics can turn horribly wrong, then I don't know how I could convince you that being able to hide from the majority is a valuable thing. Most people will not understand this - themselves being part of the oppressive majority (see: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2346 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2346). No worries, I'll continue to preserve my privacy in every way possible!

imgabe 11y ago
> They don't "see them as real human beings" because the victims are dehumanized as a different tribe. Exactly. And the way to counteract this is by speaking up and showing them that the victims are real people. Not by hiding the victims. As long as they never see or hear about or meet any real person that's a member of the oppressed class, they can maintain the illusion that they are "others". It's easy for someone to hate "gays" as an abstract notion. It's a lot harder to hate your gay neighbor Fred, who waves hello in the morning and asks how your day is going and picks up the mail for you when you're out of town. Maybe it's valuable in the short term for some individuals to be able to hide, but it only slows down the progress overall. Aside from that, my main point is that, valuable or not, hiding is not going to be an option. Digital information doesn't stay in one place. Even if you think it's really wrong that it doesn't, it still doesn't. Music companies think it's really wrong that people can share copies of music files, but that hasn't stopped it from happening. Ignoring the reality of it and trying to legislate it away hasn't stopped it. It won't stop companies/governments from sharing information about you either. So, if that's what you're relying on to keep you safe, you're not going to be safe.
- mindslight 11y ago
  > And the way to counteract this is by speaking up and showing them that the victims are real people How's that been working out for hard drug users, file sharers, and non-molesting pedophiles? > hiding is not going to be an option This is such an utterly defeatist conclusion. There will always be some types of information that are impossible to keep private and some that will be easy to, but there's a huge middleground that requires organization and resources (eg traffic cameras, credit bureaus) to collect, aggregate, and exploit. The entities currently doing are centralized, so they could easily be put out of business. Individual actions and peers will only leak certain things through eg mass photos, and to presuppose omniscience on the part of a would-be decentralized reconstructor is to ignore how that capability would be bootstrapped - the economic advantage from private surveillance that currently goes unregulated. Obviously the existing power structures have a lot more to gain by developing surveillance than prohibiting it. But a decently secured computer containing one's private files is a shining beacon of a Schelling point as well. I really don't see the point of capitulating early and backfitting it into a philosophy of openness. I guarantee our rulers won't be quick to do so either.