3 ms·
Seems like there should be some middle ground. Everyone agrees that people should be entitled to some privacy under certain circumstances. But the camp advocati
by umvi 7y ago
Seems like there should be some middle ground. Everyone agrees that people should be entitled to some privacy under certain circumstances. But the camp advocating absolute privacy by-default 24/7/365 is too extreme, imo.
There are many societal illnesses that both emerge and are difficult to solve when everyone is untracably anonymous. Lack of privacy provides a feedback mechanism by which corrective action can be taken.
- bmn__ 7y agoWhat a magnificent piece of misdirection and mind manipulation. You should not try to pull a fast one with cheap propaganda tricks on HN readers, that won't work most of the time. > there should be some middle ground argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy > the camp advocating absolute privacy by-default 24/7/365 is too extreme People who speak in favour of exercising a basic human rights are labelled extremists. > everyone is untracably anonymous Shifting of the goal-post: privacy is not the same as anonymity.
- twelve40 7y ago> People who speak in favour of exercising a basic human rights are labelled extremists. No, not extremists, more like the Patriot Act has been in place since 2001 and other things like Facebook running most people's lives (maybe not you, but 1+ billion other people) are a fact of life now, and has been for decades. If someone says we must have privacy, I'd say sure, but that's not how it's been for decades now, and there is no realistic solution in sight, only keeps getting worse. Hence the calls for some middle ground.