4 ms·
It's hard for someone engaged in public policy to understand that most people just live their lives and have a basic and vague understanding of most policy issu
by pradn 3y ago
It's hard for someone engaged in public policy to understand that most people just live their lives and have a basic and vague understanding of most policy issues. If you ask people about marine fishing limits, they'll say there are probably some national and some international rules to prevent overfishing. But they're not going to know the specifics, and aren't going to know the problem of overfishing by fleets from certain countries.
The same thing is going to apply to every other sphere of policy. We on HN believe that tech privacy is important and follow the developments on this website, but it's a stretch to expect regular people to know this stuff. And it's not a knock on regular people! They're experts in their domains, everyone is - from car mechanics to baristas to hobbyist knitters. People are too busy resting from work, taking care of their families, and pursuing their interests.
So where do you go from there? If you're engaged in the policy world, it helps to create institutions regular people can delegate policy expertise to, like the EFF or the Humane Society. Intense lobbying by small groups gets results (in both good and bad ways). And having a large "laity" of people that support the institution and expect it to do the nitty-gritty is ok.
- bitcharmer 3y agoI think protecting privacy to prevent the government from becoming oppressive tyrant seems like it applies to more people and in more indirect way than fishing limits. But maybe my priorities just aren't right.
- __blockcipher__ 3y agoIt seems that way to you because you're mired in it. But to someone who isn't, such policy doesn't have a tangible impact on their life, or more accurately it doesn't seem to. In much the same way that the impact of overfishing doesn't feel like it impacts you.
- troutwine 3y agoI think what the OP is getting at is that not knowing about something in great detail doesn't mean it's not important. Folks'll hew to what they find immediately pressing or have an inclination toward. Which is to say, the world is monstrously complicated and we are small and there's only so much an individual can focus on in their life. The collapse of fish populations due to overfishing will cause starvation, a lot of it. The erosion of personal privacy will abet a certain kind of tyranny. I don't think these are different scales of important but they are different problems that require detailed knowledge to comprehend to a good degree, which implies time and interest.
- micromacrofoot 3y agolack of privacy probably won’t eradicate entire species and irrevocably change the ecosystem... all a matter of perspective
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoI agree. I think we (the "tech" crowd) overestimate how important these things are. If privacy intrusions were harming people it would be a bigger issue that more people know about.
- oneplane 3y agoI don't think we overestimate it, but definitely assume more awareness than there actually is. Harm is also real, but much less visible than you'd think and thus mure easier ignored, especially if the negative effects are asynchronous and take a long time to have an impact. If people don't know to what degree they are being manipulated, for how long, and what for, they'll probably also not care for the cause of it.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoI'm not saying it's not real- only that it's incredibly privileged to assume that privacy is an extreme issue that requires everyone's attention. Stop the press! These brainiacs who got us into this mess are telling me what to think again!
- parineum 3y ago>Harm is also real, but much less visible than you'd think and thus mure easier ignored, especially if the negative effects are asynchronous and take a long time to have an impact. I agree with this but I think you're missing why people still don't care (as much as you). Lots of people are worried about things that are much more urgent let alone visible, synchronous and immediate. As an example, I avoid social media very staunchly for privacy reasons. I was recently unemployed and when that situation became more urgent, I started a LinkedIn account.
- hot_gril 3y agoMy online data has been mined for over a decade, and I'm still not seeing the harm to me. If anything, the reaction of a cookies warning on every single news article has been more annoying. I also don't see my theoretical risk of being manipulated by the media, but if I'm wrong, like you said, worst case I also won't care. I get being concerned about censorship, keeping guns at home, etc, but this is way down there on my list of concerns.
- hot_gril 3y ago> We on HN believe that tech privacy is important Speak for yourself ;) (But yeah, this is probably true for the majority of HN)