4 ms·
"I'm considerably more pro-privacy than I was a few years ago. A few years ago, my position was closer to "in a well-running society it's probably optimal that
by decentralised 8y ago
"I'm considerably more pro-privacy than I was a few years ago. A few years ago, my position was closer to "in a well-running society it's probably optimal that everyone sees everything, the value for privacy tech for ordinary people is (i) to let them buy weed, put up beds so people can sleep over in offices, and otherwise circumvent silly regulations, and (ii) to maintain a healthy balance of power, because even if more transparency is good, the government only having the all-seeing eye and everyone else being in the dark would give too much power to the government".
Things that changed my mind, and made me believe that even in a hypothetical perfectly equal and fair society people having some privacy is a good idea include:
- Reading Robin Hanson and others' literature on signalling, and seeing just how large a portion of our lives it still is. Basically, I see privacy as a way to prevent signalling concerns from encompassing all of our activity, and creating spheres where we are free to optimize for our own happiness and just our own happiness, and not what other people think about us.
- Having a deeper understanding of the ways that it's possible to make other people's lives suck even as a law-abiding private citizen, and realizing that privacy is an important self-defense tool for those situations.
- Realizing more deeply that "the people" are not always virtuous, and that social pressure as a mechanism for influencing people's behavior doesn't always lead to results I approve of (see: recent string of internet mobs leading to people getting fired for political views). Realizing how bad mainstream media is even today, which makes me more understanding of people's desire to protect themselves from them.
Mass surveillance is problematic because (i) I don't trust governments and large corporations to have interests that are aligned with us, and (ii) it creates points of centralized data collection that could get hacked, leading to everyone getting that data even if that was never the original intention. That said, in the physical space it's pretty unavoidable, so we should at least work hard to make the internet a more privacy-preserving place."
Vitalik Buterin
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/8m3wj1/rothschilds_in_crypto_goodbadneutral/dzmspgv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/8m3wj1/rothschild...
- blattimwind 8y agoThe "in a well-running society it's probably optimal that everyone sees everything" view is something practically only held by people who don't deviate in any significant way from societal norms. It's obvious to "deviants" -- or people sharing minimal insight into the actual breadth of people's behaviours and tastes -- that it's not at all something to strive for. A society of the "everyone sees everything" kind is a tyranny of the masses not just limited to your usual racism and whatnot, but crushing down on literally every property of a human being. Your run-of-the-mill Orwellian nightmare is a fluffy wonderland of individualism in comparison.
- dllthomas 8y agoThere's a thread of thought, in amongst radical transparency memes, that bringing these things out into the light will increase acceptance of deviation (... as a good thing). That may well be wrong, but I don't think it's obviously wrong. FWIW, I think it's probably true that the dynamic will exist, but it probably won't be enough to defang your argument.
- pixl97 8y ago>that bringing these things out into the light will increase acceptance of deviation Eh, there is a lot of very complex sociology going on here. Deviation is rather not accepted by humanity, our species is rather homogeneous, and has remained so across long periods of time and cultures. Deviants that have a significant size will probably survive. It's the very small clusters of new deviations that are apt to be eradicated before they can get a foothold.
- blattimwind 8y agoActually I think that reinforces the point I made about who thinks in these ways. Either that or a distinct lack of empathy / regard for the well-being of all those that would suffer in their "utopy".
- pixl97 8y agoAka "omnipotent moral busybodies"