7 ms·

> I was never able to gain an inch on his argument until I asked him why he has curtains on his living room window. I'm not doing anything wrong, but I still c

> I was never able to gain an inch on his argument until I asked him why he has curtains on his living room window. I'm not doing anything wrong, but I still close the door when I take a dump. The idea that someone wanting privacy means it is nefarious or wrong is ridiculous.

ekanes 6y ago
While crass, that's a great way to put it. Why can't I just want my conversations to be private because eavesdropping without cause is icky. Just like in person.
dariosalvi78 6y ago
that would be a nice way to get spies out of our data: flood them with pictures of our dumps :)
- malandrew 6y ago
  Any sufficiently advanced noise is indistinguishable from signal. (... not saying dumps are advanced noise, but this is on the right track. Don't hide the needle. Produce more haystack)
  - ricksharp 6y ago
    Interesting. So instead of an ad blocker, we could have background bots in our browser visiting random urls and clicking on every ad in sight (of course it would need to mimic human UI input). I wonder what affect that would have.
    - Larrikin 6y ago
      The only legitimate ad blocker that has been banned from the chrome store was ad nauseum. It was a thin wrapper over ublock that a click signal to every single ad. You could adjust the intensity (no clicks, some clicks, all), but that was where Google drew the line.
      - visarga 6y ago
        Be careful not to get your Google account banned with this.
    - dariosalvi78 6y ago
      this was made by an acquaintance: http://martinnadal.eu/fango/ http://martinnadal.eu/fango/
nearbuy 6y ago
I never found this type of argument satisfying. It's more of an appeal to emotion than a rational reason. In our culture we feel deep embarrassment if someone sees us using the toilet, but this is not universal across people and cultures, and honestly, it shouldn't be embarrassing. There's nothing inherently wrong with pooping. We irrationally feel embarrassment when we shouldn't have to. This argument doesn't show any negative consequences of invasion of privacy. It's also not clear how it extrapolates to situations that don't involve toilets or nudity. If the problem is embarrassment, and people don't feel embarrassed that Facebook collects data, does that make it okay? Obviously there are other arguments for privacy that do show potential harm. I find these more compelling.
- fraktl 6y ago
  We shouldn't do many things but we do. If I feel embarrassed, it means I am vulnerable. I want to keep it to myself and I have the right to feel embarrassed, despite it being illogical. Humans aren't perfectly logical beings. If we were, there would be no discussions like this one.
  - acephal 6y ago
    We wouldn't be living things
  - nearbuy 6y ago
    Sure, I don't want to embarrass people. We should try to accommodate people's feelings. But I don't think it's the strong argument in favour of privacy that we want to make, because: 1. We do give people privacy in the bathroom. The debate is over the data social media companies collect. If people aren't generally embarrassed that Facebook collects data about what they post on Facebook, how does it relate to being embarrassed to be seen on the toilet? 2. Do we always have to accommodate irrational feelings? What about people who are easily offended by things that things that most would consider non-offensive? Is it immoral for a child to dress as a clown on halloween given that some people have coulrophobia? If you're arguing with someone who believes law enforcement should have access to people's social media and you bring up that stuff posted on social media could be embarrassing, the obvious response is, "Well, too bad. Investigating crimes is more important."
notriddle 6y ago
That's not really the same thing. I close the door to the toilet because other people don't want to see it. I close the blinds when reading a book because they do want to see it.
greggman3 6y ago
My dad doesn't close the door when he take a dump. That's the way he was raised and so that's how he does it.

ekanes 6y ago

While crass, that's a great way to put it. Why can't I just want my conversations to be private because eavesdropping without cause is icky. Just like in person.

dariosalvi78 6y ago

that would be a nice way to get spies out of our data: flood them with pictures of our dumps :)

malandrew 6y ago
Any sufficiently advanced noise is indistinguishable from signal. (... not saying dumps are advanced noise, but this is on the right track. Don't hide the needle. Produce more haystack)
- ricksharp 6y ago
  Interesting. So instead of an ad blocker, we could have background bots in our browser visiting random urls and clicking on every ad in sight (of course it would need to mimic human UI input). I wonder what affect that would have.
  - Larrikin 6y ago
    The only legitimate ad blocker that has been banned from the chrome store was ad nauseum. It was a thin wrapper over ublock that a click signal to every single ad. You could adjust the intensity (no clicks, some clicks, all), but that was where Google drew the line.
    - visarga 6y ago
      Be careful not to get your Google account banned with this.
  - dariosalvi78 6y ago
    this was made by an acquaintance: http://martinnadal.eu/fango/ http://martinnadal.eu/fango/

nearbuy 6y ago

I never found this type of argument satisfying. It's more of an appeal to emotion than a rational reason. In our culture we feel deep embarrassment if someone sees us using the toilet, but this is not universal across people and cultures, and honestly, it shouldn't be embarrassing. There's nothing inherently wrong with pooping. We irrationally feel embarrassment when we shouldn't have to. This argument doesn't show any negative consequences of invasion of privacy. It's also not clear how it extrapolates to situations that don't involve toilets or nudity. If the problem is embarrassment, and people don't feel embarrassed that Facebook collects data, does that make it okay? Obviously there are other arguments for privacy that do show potential harm. I find these more compelling.

fraktl 6y ago
We shouldn't do many things but we do. If I feel embarrassed, it means I am vulnerable. I want to keep it to myself and I have the right to feel embarrassed, despite it being illogical. Humans aren't perfectly logical beings. If we were, there would be no discussions like this one.
- acephal 6y ago
  We wouldn't be living things
- nearbuy 6y ago
  Sure, I don't want to embarrass people. We should try to accommodate people's feelings. But I don't think it's the strong argument in favour of privacy that we want to make, because: 1. We do give people privacy in the bathroom. The debate is over the data social media companies collect. If people aren't generally embarrassed that Facebook collects data about what they post on Facebook, how does it relate to being embarrassed to be seen on the toilet? 2. Do we always have to accommodate irrational feelings? What about people who are easily offended by things that things that most would consider non-offensive? Is it immoral for a child to dress as a clown on halloween given that some people have coulrophobia? If you're arguing with someone who believes law enforcement should have access to people's social media and you bring up that stuff posted on social media could be embarrassing, the obvious response is, "Well, too bad. Investigating crimes is more important."

notriddle 6y ago

That's not really the same thing. I close the door to the toilet because other people don't want to see it. I close the blinds when reading a book because they do want to see it.

greggman3 6y ago

My dad doesn't close the door when he take a dump. That's the way he was raised and so that's how he does it.