3 ms·

I'm saying that "all of the internet" is more than the public internet. You seem to be saying the opposite, especially since you said "archiving the whole inter

I'm saying that "all of the internet" is more than the public internet. You seem to be saying the opposite, especially since you said "archiving the whole internet" which implies that any one entity has that sort of access. You say "Public or not" as if that does not make a difference, but there is a huge chasm between the privacy you can (and reasonably should) expect depending on it. I think privacy is something we should strive for, but I think that when something is said publically on a globally broadcasted medium people cannot reasonably have an expectation of privacy. The problem with privacy in my mind is when there can reasonably be an expectation of privacy but that isn't met. If I tweet something it's clear that's public. If I DM someone that should be private. Why is it reasonable to not expect that there would be someone saving public data?

kodah 5y ago
archive.org accepted dumps of Parler, in recent memory, which is clearly stolen information. Do you think that's the first time they've accepted information that is meant to be private? Facebook had created puppet profiles from people's contact information and made them public, notoriously. Like, at what point would you like to accept that GPs statement is not hyperbole? Would all information that was private need to go public? By then I'd say it is too late. This is a rather silly argument where you try to draw some line in online services that has been willfully greyed by the people who create these platforms for their own benefit. If you want to call GP a privacy fatalist, then I'll just call you a privacy denialist and leave it there.
- SahAssar 5y ago
  I strongly believe that privacy is important, but I also think that it is important for people to have clear expectations of when they can expect it. Is it so absurd to say that if I post stuff publically I cannot expect it to be private and if I post stuff privately I should absolutely be able to depend on it to be private? I think your example of parler is an example of a service that was not adequately secured to protect it's private communications and the facebook example is clearly unethical and just one of the reasons I don't use the service.

kodah 5y ago

archive.org accepted dumps of Parler, in recent memory, which is clearly stolen information. Do you think that's the first time they've accepted information that is meant to be private? Facebook had created puppet profiles from people's contact information and made them public, notoriously. Like, at what point would you like to accept that GPs statement is not hyperbole? Would all information that was private need to go public? By then I'd say it is too late. This is a rather silly argument where you try to draw some line in online services that has been willfully greyed by the people who create these platforms for their own benefit. If you want to call GP a privacy fatalist, then I'll just call you a privacy denialist and leave it there.

SahAssar 5y ago
I strongly believe that privacy is important, but I also think that it is important for people to have clear expectations of when they can expect it. Is it so absurd to say that if I post stuff publically I cannot expect it to be private and if I post stuff privately I should absolutely be able to depend on it to be private? I think your example of parler is an example of a service that was not adequately secured to protect it's private communications and the facebook example is clearly unethical and just one of the reasons I don't use the service.