4 ms·

I don’t understand. This seems pretty innocuous to me. >“If you’re an average internet user, you may not think too much about your privacy when you visit a ran

I don’t understand. This seems pretty innocuous to me. >“If you’re an average internet user, you may not think too much about your privacy when you visit a random website” Surely you don’t dispute that? Like, maybe the average user should think about their privacy when they visit a random website, but it’s not dizzying to say that they probably don’t. And the rest of statement is just saying that some users are more at risk of what is a targeted exploit. Probably both in terms of the chance it is used against them, and the consequences of that use. Your point that unmasking gets used against a wide range of people is well taken, but it hardly invalidates the argument being made here, does it? You believe it’s more important to emphasize that everyone should care about privacy. The author seems to believe that it’s more important to emphasize the impact on populations more likely to be targeted. Both are fair perspectives.

OJFord 3y ago
It's impossible to know the author's intent of course, but I think the problem/confusion is the choice of the word 'impacted' - GP is saying essentially 'everyone is impacted, even if only a few are aware/care'. Your reading I assume is impacted in the sense of thinking and worrying about it; affected (strictly speaking) by it.
- zztop44 3y ago
  The article says there “certain categories of internet users who may be more significantly impacted by this”. I think that’s probably true. And regardless of whether or not everyone is impacted at some level, I think it’s reasonable to point out that some may be impacted more significantly. Regardless of which version of “impacted” you mean.
rendaw 3y ago
In the next sentence, by saying that minorities etc. are more significantly impacted the author is implying that average internet users are justified in not worrying about privacy. This is what GP is arguing against.
- zztop44 3y ago
  Is that what the author is implying? That certainly wasn’t my takeaway. If that was the author’s intended message, I’d certainly agree it’s not a good one. But I doubt that was the intended message, to be honest. One population being more significantly impacted by something does not imply that other populations are not also meaningfully impacted.
  - l33tman 3y ago
    Maybe the author's intent wasn't that, but the phrasing is a bit apologetic, like (exaggerating here...) "we're sorry to bother you, the average internet user with this discovery, but just so you know there ARE minorities that care about privacy"
hedora 3y ago
The best data point we have for opting into invasive privacy violations is the iOS thing, where over 90% of people opted out. Therefore, it is more than safe to conclude the 50th percentile of all users would prefer to opt out of web tracking. You seem to be claiming that half of the users that turned on private mode don’t care about tracking, or that it doesn’t matter if the industry doesn’t respect their explicit attempts to opt out of tracking.
- TylerE 3y ago
  The difference is Apple has the muscle to make that happen without, ya know, breaking the internet.

OJFord 3y ago

It's impossible to know the author's intent of course, but I think the problem/confusion is the choice of the word 'impacted' - GP is saying essentially 'everyone is impacted, even if only a few are aware/care'. Your reading I assume is impacted in the sense of thinking and worrying about it; affected (strictly speaking) by it.

zztop44 3y ago
The article says there “certain categories of internet users who may be more significantly impacted by this”. I think that’s probably true. And regardless of whether or not everyone is impacted at some level, I think it’s reasonable to point out that some may be impacted more significantly. Regardless of which version of “impacted” you mean.

rendaw 3y ago

In the next sentence, by saying that minorities etc. are more significantly impacted the author is implying that average internet users are justified in not worrying about privacy. This is what GP is arguing against.

zztop44 3y ago
Is that what the author is implying? That certainly wasn’t my takeaway. If that was the author’s intended message, I’d certainly agree it’s not a good one. But I doubt that was the intended message, to be honest. One population being more significantly impacted by something does not imply that other populations are not also meaningfully impacted.
- l33tman 3y ago
  Maybe the author's intent wasn't that, but the phrasing is a bit apologetic, like (exaggerating here...) "we're sorry to bother you, the average internet user with this discovery, but just so you know there ARE minorities that care about privacy"

hedora 3y ago

The best data point we have for opting into invasive privacy violations is the iOS thing, where over 90% of people opted out. Therefore, it is more than safe to conclude the 50th percentile of all users would prefer to opt out of web tracking. You seem to be claiming that half of the users that turned on private mode don’t care about tracking, or that it doesn’t matter if the industry doesn’t respect their explicit attempts to opt out of tracking.

TylerE 3y ago
The difference is Apple has the muscle to make that happen without, ya know, breaking the internet.