3 ms·

None of these sound like choices that will result in a significant increase in privacy unless people, en masse, collectively decide to do it with a hive mind th

by kar5pt 5y ago

None of these sound like choices that will result in a significant increase in privacy unless people, en masse, collectively decide to do it with a hive mind that doesn't exist. People are technically "choosing" the status quo, but doing it from a very limited set of options. What you're doing is like saying citizens of North Korea are "choosing" to live under the Kim regime because they could technically try to overthrow him if they wanted to. You have to consider the costs of doing so and the likelihood it would succeed.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I never said the choices were easy or cheap, or that they could be made on an individual basis. On the contrary, many of these are collective choices made by society, especially when it comes to the law. >What you're doing is like saying citizens of North Korea are "choosing" to live under the Kim regime because they could technically try to overthrow him if they wanted to. You have to consider the costs of doing so and the likelihood it would succeed. I actually think this is the most insightful and humane way to think about those who live in NK under the Kim regime. They are born into an awful situation where their choices are very limited. They can collaborate, resist, or try to flee and all have unattractive consequences. I wouldn't disparage someone for choosing any of the above given such poor options. The plight of these people is defined by their lack of attractive choices, for example, they can not choose to emigrate from NK, or vote in free elections. Similarly, this framing showcases the bravery and optimism when people choose to do make hard choices, like to be a resistor in NK, despite the tremendous cost and low chance of success. To me, saying people have no choice is dehumanizes those both those who suffer or secede based on their choices.

by kar5pt 5y ago

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I never said the choices were easy or cheap, or that they could be made on an individual basis. On the contrary, many of these are collective choices made by society, especially when it comes to the law. >What you're doing is like saying citizens of North Korea are "choosing" to live under the Kim regime because they could technically try to overthrow him if they wanted to. You have to consider the costs of doing so and the likelihood it would succeed. I actually think this is the most insightful and humane way to think about those who live in NK under the Kim regime. They are born into an awful situation where their choices are very limited. They can collaborate, resist, or try to flee and all have unattractive consequences. I wouldn't disparage someone for choosing any of the above given such poor options. The plight of these people is defined by their lack of attractive choices, for example, they can not choose to emigrate from NK, or vote in free elections. Similarly, this framing showcases the bravery and optimism when people choose to do make hard choices, like to be a resistor in NK, despite the tremendous cost and low chance of success. To me, saying people have no choice is dehumanizes those both those who suffer or secede based on their choices.