3 ms·

> the “techlash” by Congress and the public “in the wake of myriad privacy scandals” and the 2016 election This just makes my head explode. Because tech comp

> the “techlash” by Congress and the public “in the wake of myriad privacy scandals” and the 2016 election This just makes my head explode. Because tech companies tend to be poor at privacy, let's use that logic to make it so the government can invade your privacy anytime they want?

IAmEveryone 7y ago
It’s basic enemy-of my-enemy logic. It’s not always correct, but often enough to remain a powerful heuristic. It would be interesting to know if anybody has thought deeper about it, and if there are specific strategies of persuasion that work better in such situations? I’d intuitively think it might be beneficial to acknowledge the cognitive dissonance people might be experiencing when arguing this matter.
Allower 7y ago
Not even just the government, backdoors aren't specific to one actor or another. They are literally trying to make it easier for criminals to commit crimes, that makes my head explode as well..
orblivion 7y ago
This is a world where (at least it seems to me) the same people are against net neutrality legislation but want the government to regulate Facebook. By the time you get into the nuances of why the tech companies support encryption in some cases, you've lost the PR game.
chubs 7y ago
Maybe the pitch to voters is: "Your privacy is already toast, your information is being used for ads, why not let us use it for counterterrorism?"
joe_the_user 7y ago
Yeah, "techlash" is a weird term but it's as good as any I've heard for the phenomena. I have plenty of these amorphous attacks on Facebook in particular here on HN, where you get some amount of too much sharing, some amount of "it's just like drugs, man", some amount of too much privacy and so-forth all cobbled together into some sort of complaint. A lot of smart people seemed to get on board that train without thinking much.

IAmEveryone 7y ago

It’s basic enemy-of my-enemy logic. It’s not always correct, but often enough to remain a powerful heuristic. It would be interesting to know if anybody has thought deeper about it, and if there are specific strategies of persuasion that work better in such situations? I’d intuitively think it might be beneficial to acknowledge the cognitive dissonance people might be experiencing when arguing this matter.

Allower 7y ago

Not even just the government, backdoors aren't specific to one actor or another. They are literally trying to make it easier for criminals to commit crimes, that makes my head explode as well..

orblivion 7y ago

This is a world where (at least it seems to me) the same people are against net neutrality legislation but want the government to regulate Facebook. By the time you get into the nuances of why the tech companies support encryption in some cases, you've lost the PR game.

chubs 7y ago

Maybe the pitch to voters is: "Your privacy is already toast, your information is being used for ads, why not let us use it for counterterrorism?"

joe_the_user 7y ago

Yeah, "techlash" is a weird term but it's as good as any I've heard for the phenomena. I have plenty of these amorphous attacks on Facebook in particular here on HN, where you get some amount of too much sharing, some amount of "it's just like drugs, man", some amount of too much privacy and so-forth all cobbled together into some sort of complaint. A lot of smart people seemed to get on board that train without thinking much.