3 ms·
In this case there is another service, but that argument is quite weak in general. Here is a fantastic video with lots of legitimate criticism of that stand:
by SteveJS 15y ago
In this case there is another service, but that argument is quite weak in general. Here is a fantastic video with lots of legitimate criticism of that stand: http://www.securitytube.net/video/1084 http://www.securitytube.net/video/1084.
At a certain point your choice is give up privacy or give up participation in society. Right now giving up G+ is not giving up email, or giving up having a cell phone, or giving up driving, but at a certain point it will be exactly like that.
- nitrogen 15y agoAt a certain point your choice is give up privacy or give up participation in society. Right now giving up G+ is not giving up email, or giving up having a cell phone, or giving up driving, but at a certain point it will be exactly like that. This is the argument that needs to be raised more frequently in these discussions. Until there is a unified architecture for social interaction across different networks, it is very important which networks you can access. If we don't have a unifying protocol that links all social networks, then in the end, there can be only one. Arguing that pseudonymous users should find a different service is equivalent to arguing that they should be entirely excluded from social interaction with the broader society.