3 ms·

> somebody who is required to have a clear reputation. That's definitely the kind of thing we all knew ahead when we were 13-17.

• ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  Well maybe not all of us, but that's an impossible standard to meet. I distinctly remember elementary school classes, some 25 years ago where we had to learn about computer safety and privacy, and what the possible consequences of posting things online could be. We were <10 years old and we understood. I also remember a lot of kids in class working on their html website. I don't see why we should have lower standards for kids today, it's so sad how it all turned out.
  • shakow 4y ago
    The problem is that when we were young, not posting under you own name and cleaning cookies was virtually enough to keep you anonymized on the Internet. A teen wanting to discretely inform themselves on, let's say, sexual orientation, need to be careful about e.g. their Windows account and/or use a public device, mind their Chrome/Edge/... account, use another search engine than Google, use porn mode, be sure that the page they visit is not using Twitter/Google/Facebook/... trackers, clear cookies, clear profile, be careful with device fingerprinting, browser fingerprinting, etc. At some point, this is a losing battle.
• Hizonner 4y ago
  Back in the 1990s, David Brin was arguing that privacy was going to go away, and we were going to end up with a "transparent society", and that would be OK, because people would learn not to freak out over stupid crap. Hasn't happened yet. At least the not freaking out part hasn't.
  • bjelkeman-again 4y ago
    Didn’t he argue for full transparency both ways? That didn’t seem likely even then (even if I like his essay).