3 ms·

I think that privacy is unsustainable. I don't think we should strive to protect it. We should work toward enabling people to live fully transparent lives. Whe

I think that privacy is unsustainable. I don't think we should strive to protect it. We should work toward enabling people to live fully transparent lives. When I say "app", I mean all software including websites. The main problem to tackle is not a technical one, but a design one. It's with the UX fragmentation that I have a problem. A native mega-app that contains mini-apps with different UX is not better than what we have today. The web browser is even worse than native apps, as there's not even a minimal set of guidelines that help unify the web experience.

Freak_NL 10y ago
> We should work toward enabling people to live fully transparent lives. Undesirable for most, harmful for many, and lethal for some. I live in a fairly tolerant society as far as Earth standards go, but some things I will only share with a select few. Should my medical records be open to anyone? My banking statements? My sexual preferences and fantasies? That's absurd. It would ostracise a lot of people even in a nominally free society. In some less enlightened jurisdictions some of these will get you executed or lynched (ask any gay person in a Muslim country, or anyone critical of their government in a repressive regime). Yet I might want to chat about some topics with like minded individuals (again, assume for the sake of argument that all of it is legal in my jurisdiction) under a pseudonym or anonymity; the internet is a wonderful place where this is possible — partly because I'm not doing everything through one megacorp's 'app'. I'd like to keep it that way. > […] as there's not even a minimal set of guidelines that help unify the web experience. Good. Our culture thrives by diversity. Innovation stagnates without it. We standardise where necessary for mutual benefit and cooperation (e.g., HTML, CSS, and JavaScript; Unicode; or accessibility standards), and often we will imitate or copy what works (e.g., the 'hamburger menu', or sensible typography) but that doesn't mean every site or service or application should look the same and connect to the same set of identity providers. You present a very radical viewpoint, and I applaud you for your fervour, but I suspect you are either very young, not a developer, or you haven't experienced the downside of the monopolistic behaviour of the world's Apples, Googles, and Microsofts yet.
- miguelrochefort 10y ago
  > Undesirable for most, harmful for many, and lethal for some. As I said, there is work to do before we can go fully transparent. It will ultimately be harmful only to those who deserve it. > Should my medical records be open to anyone? My banking statements? My sexual preferences and fantasies? That's absurd. Yes. Yes. Yes. Why do you assume that's absurd? Why do you insist on keeping secrets? The world would be a lot better if all those things were communicated publicly. > In some less enlightened jurisdictions some of these will get you executed or lynched (ask any gay person in a Muslim country, or anyone critical of their government in a repressive regime). That's a problem that will only get worse as privacy is maintained. Privacy skews our perception of reality and makes people/government think that some ideas/flaws/actions/crimes are rare when the reality is that most people are able to conceal them. Those who get caught suffer from exaggerated punishment that's only sustained through the ability of others to hide. The democratization of privacy is not the solution to this problem. > Yet I might want to chat about some topics with like minded individuals (again, assume for the sake of argument that all of it is legal in my jurisdiction) under a pseudonym or anonymity; the internet is a wonderful place where this is possible — partly because I'm not doing everything through one megacorp's 'app'. I'd like to keep it that way. Anonymity is overrated. It's only good at restricting details that could otherwise become a distraction, as a way to focus on content rather than form. This can be achieved through other means that don't restrict access to information or make a person believe their reputation is immune to bad actions. Again, the only reason you want privacy and anonymity is because it's the norm, not because it's best. I have never implied that such an "app" would be owned by a mega corporation. It will be fully open (again, transparent), free and distributed. > We standardise where necessary for mutual benefit and cooperation (e.g., HTML, CSS, and JavaScript; Unicode; or accessibility standards), and often we will imitate or copy what works (e.g., the 'hamburger menu', or sensible typography) but that doesn't mean every site or service or application should look the same and connect to the same set of identity providers. These standards, while better than nothing, are mediocre at best. They're also very low-level. I don't want my grandmother to program in HTML/CSS/JS. > You present a very radical viewpoint, and I applaud you for your fervour, but I suspect you are either very young, not a developer, or you haven't experienced the downside of the monopolistic behaviour of the world's Apples, Googles, and Microsofts yet. I'm 25. I'm a developer. I fully appreciate the limitations of Google/Apple/Microsoft, hence my request to make something different.

Freak_NL 10y ago

> We should work toward enabling people to live fully transparent lives. Undesirable for most, harmful for many, and lethal for some. I live in a fairly tolerant society as far as Earth standards go, but some things I will only share with a select few. Should my medical records be open to anyone? My banking statements? My sexual preferences and fantasies? That's absurd. It would ostracise a lot of people even in a nominally free society. In some less enlightened jurisdictions some of these will get you executed or lynched (ask any gay person in a Muslim country, or anyone critical of their government in a repressive regime). Yet I might want to chat about some topics with like minded individuals (again, assume for the sake of argument that all of it is legal in my jurisdiction) under a pseudonym or anonymity; the internet is a wonderful place where this is possible — partly because I'm not doing everything through one megacorp's 'app'. I'd like to keep it that way. > […] as there's not even a minimal set of guidelines that help unify the web experience. Good. Our culture thrives by diversity. Innovation stagnates without it. We standardise where necessary for mutual benefit and cooperation (e.g., HTML, CSS, and JavaScript; Unicode; or accessibility standards), and often we will imitate or copy what works (e.g., the 'hamburger menu', or sensible typography) but that doesn't mean every site or service or application should look the same and connect to the same set of identity providers. You present a very radical viewpoint, and I applaud you for your fervour, but I suspect you are either very young, not a developer, or you haven't experienced the downside of the monopolistic behaviour of the world's Apples, Googles, and Microsofts yet.

miguelrochefort 10y ago
> Undesirable for most, harmful for many, and lethal for some. As I said, there is work to do before we can go fully transparent. It will ultimately be harmful only to those who deserve it. > Should my medical records be open to anyone? My banking statements? My sexual preferences and fantasies? That's absurd. Yes. Yes. Yes. Why do you assume that's absurd? Why do you insist on keeping secrets? The world would be a lot better if all those things were communicated publicly. > In some less enlightened jurisdictions some of these will get you executed or lynched (ask any gay person in a Muslim country, or anyone critical of their government in a repressive regime). That's a problem that will only get worse as privacy is maintained. Privacy skews our perception of reality and makes people/government think that some ideas/flaws/actions/crimes are rare when the reality is that most people are able to conceal them. Those who get caught suffer from exaggerated punishment that's only sustained through the ability of others to hide. The democratization of privacy is not the solution to this problem. > Yet I might want to chat about some topics with like minded individuals (again, assume for the sake of argument that all of it is legal in my jurisdiction) under a pseudonym or anonymity; the internet is a wonderful place where this is possible — partly because I'm not doing everything through one megacorp's 'app'. I'd like to keep it that way. Anonymity is overrated. It's only good at restricting details that could otherwise become a distraction, as a way to focus on content rather than form. This can be achieved through other means that don't restrict access to information or make a person believe their reputation is immune to bad actions. Again, the only reason you want privacy and anonymity is because it's the norm, not because it's best. I have never implied that such an "app" would be owned by a mega corporation. It will be fully open (again, transparent), free and distributed. > We standardise where necessary for mutual benefit and cooperation (e.g., HTML, CSS, and JavaScript; Unicode; or accessibility standards), and often we will imitate or copy what works (e.g., the 'hamburger menu', or sensible typography) but that doesn't mean every site or service or application should look the same and connect to the same set of identity providers. These standards, while better than nothing, are mediocre at best. They're also very low-level. I don't want my grandmother to program in HTML/CSS/JS. > You present a very radical viewpoint, and I applaud you for your fervour, but I suspect you are either very young, not a developer, or you haven't experienced the downside of the monopolistic behaviour of the world's Apples, Googles, and Microsofts yet. I'm 25. I'm a developer. I fully appreciate the limitations of Google/Apple/Microsoft, hence my request to make something different.