5 ms·

Your argument relies on the miscalculation of risk, and now exposed you can’t even actually articulate an alternative reason why privacy is so important.

by Zetice 3y ago

danShumway 3y ago
> Your argument relies on the miscalculation of risk :shrug: Six million Jews would like a word with you. If that's not enough, consider that there might be a reason why we literally have laws preventing the requirement of disclosure of sex/race in hiring today? Consider the countless studies about how anonymity benefits the ability of oppressed groups (particularly women) to participate in public spaces online, consider that the Supreme Court has very directly said that anonymity and privacy are an essential component of 1st Amendment rights. You also still really haven't grappled with the fact that multiple states today are pushing to get access to medical records and social media messages both to prosecute people and label minority groups. These are not issues that are affecting only one or two people. And again, the "benefit" that we're giving up by being more private is negligible. There's very little downside to encrypting messages or blocking ad networks from tracking people. The entirety of recorded human history disagrees with your risk analysis, in addition to pretty much every single 1st Amendment expert and minority advocacy/anti-hate group today. Your math is wrong.
- Zetice 3y ago
  So you admit your argument is predicated on the number of people who are harmed. What you fail to realize is I said "modern history". WWII was nearly 80 years ago, and since then, society has improved in gigantic leaps and bounds. What happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany is no longer possible in the western world, therefore absolute privacy is unnecessary. As I said: > Every time in modern history western society has started down the path of outlawing some form of existence, we self correct.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > So you admit your argument is predicated on the number of people who are harmed. What, yeah, of course it is. What on earth are you talking about, which part of "your math is wrong" didn't you understand? Lack of privacy hurts people. Not one or two people, it hurts a lot of people. It might hurt you one day. And that's worth caring about. It's worth caring about because it's a lot of people. If you didn't realize that I was talking about risk/harms then you really didn't understand a word I was saying. Yes, I'm talking about risk. Your math about the risk is wrong. It's not a gotcha that it's apparently taken you to this point in the conversation to understand that "your math is wrong" means "your analysis of the number of people that are hurt by lack of privacy is incorrect." > and since then, society has improved in gigantic leaps and bounds. Society has improved slowly, via heavy investment from anonymous activists and advocates who put themselves in harms way to improve it. Every single one of those activist movements relied on privacy. Quite frankly, there really aren't many examples of social movements that have improved society that haven't heavily used privacy and anonymity to aid them. Certainly at the very least this displays a startling lack of knowledge about the history of race and gender in America. > is no longer possible in the western world :) Citation very, very much needed. We have a political party in America with members who are openly calling for the extermination of transgender identity, headed by a political ideologue who's currently being prosecuted for (essentially) attempting a coup. Despite that he's still favored to be the next presidential nominee of that party because the majority of that party doesn't view attempting a coup as disqualifying from office. It is incredibly naive to believe that we are no longer capable of doing terrible things in America to oppressed identities or capable of building political and social apparatus to do those terrible things. > Every time in modern history western society has started down the path of outlawing some form of existence, we self correct. And as I said, that self correction is of no benefit whatsoever for the 6 million Jews that died. Self correction is not protection. Privacy is protection.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      You had to go back 80 years to find an example of a lack of privacy hurting enough people to make your point, and that's my point. We don't have things like WW2 happen anymore, and living our life like the next Holocaust is just around the corner is paranoid and overly cynical. We really did seem to learn that lesson. Your own example of trans rights is a great one; laws protecting trans people are enshrined in many US states already, and courts are annihilating many of the attempts made to the contrary. We stumble, but we move forward, and without the loss of millions of people this time. Progress.

Your argument relies on the miscalculation of risk, and now exposed you can’t even actually articulate an alternative reason why privacy is so important.

by Zetice 3y ago

Your argument relies on the miscalculation of risk, and now exposed you can’t even actually articulate an alternative reason why privacy is so important.

danShumway 3y ago

> Your argument relies on the miscalculation of risk :shrug: Six million Jews would like a word with you. If that's not enough, consider that there might be a reason why we literally have laws preventing the requirement of disclosure of sex/race in hiring today? Consider the countless studies about how anonymity benefits the ability of oppressed groups (particularly women) to participate in public spaces online, consider that the Supreme Court has very directly said that anonymity and privacy are an essential component of 1st Amendment rights. You also still really haven't grappled with the fact that multiple states today are pushing to get access to medical records and social media messages both to prosecute people and label minority groups. These are not issues that are affecting only one or two people. And again, the "benefit" that we're giving up by being more private is negligible. There's very little downside to encrypting messages or blocking ad networks from tracking people. The entirety of recorded human history disagrees with your risk analysis, in addition to pretty much every single 1st Amendment expert and minority advocacy/anti-hate group today. Your math is wrong.

Zetice 3y ago
So you admit your argument is predicated on the number of people who are harmed. What you fail to realize is I said "modern history". WWII was nearly 80 years ago, and since then, society has improved in gigantic leaps and bounds. What happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany is no longer possible in the western world, therefore absolute privacy is unnecessary. As I said: > Every time in modern history western society has started down the path of outlawing some form of existence, we self correct.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > So you admit your argument is predicated on the number of people who are harmed. What, yeah, of course it is. What on earth are you talking about, which part of "your math is wrong" didn't you understand? Lack of privacy hurts people. Not one or two people, it hurts a lot of people. It might hurt you one day. And that's worth caring about. It's worth caring about because it's a lot of people. If you didn't realize that I was talking about risk/harms then you really didn't understand a word I was saying. Yes, I'm talking about risk. Your math about the risk is wrong. It's not a gotcha that it's apparently taken you to this point in the conversation to understand that "your math is wrong" means "your analysis of the number of people that are hurt by lack of privacy is incorrect." > and since then, society has improved in gigantic leaps and bounds. Society has improved slowly, via heavy investment from anonymous activists and advocates who put themselves in harms way to improve it. Every single one of those activist movements relied on privacy. Quite frankly, there really aren't many examples of social movements that have improved society that haven't heavily used privacy and anonymity to aid them. Certainly at the very least this displays a startling lack of knowledge about the history of race and gender in America. > is no longer possible in the western world :) Citation very, very much needed. We have a political party in America with members who are openly calling for the extermination of transgender identity, headed by a political ideologue who's currently being prosecuted for (essentially) attempting a coup. Despite that he's still favored to be the next presidential nominee of that party because the majority of that party doesn't view attempting a coup as disqualifying from office. It is incredibly naive to believe that we are no longer capable of doing terrible things in America to oppressed identities or capable of building political and social apparatus to do those terrible things. > Every time in modern history western society has started down the path of outlawing some form of existence, we self correct. And as I said, that self correction is of no benefit whatsoever for the 6 million Jews that died. Self correction is not protection. Privacy is protection.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    You had to go back 80 years to find an example of a lack of privacy hurting enough people to make your point, and that's my point. We don't have things like WW2 happen anymore, and living our life like the next Holocaust is just around the corner is paranoid and overly cynical. We really did seem to learn that lesson. Your own example of trans rights is a great one; laws protecting trans people are enshrined in many US states already, and courts are annihilating many of the attempts made to the contrary. We stumble, but we move forward, and without the loss of millions of people this time. Progress.