7 ms·

> Also, I'm sure that there are better and worse choices for who to trust with data and privacy -- but it's literally impossible for me to know who that would b

> Also, I'm sure that there are better and worse choices for who to trust with data and privacy -- but it's literally impossible for me to know who that would be (or if anybody is "trustworthy" in a broad sense), so I have to work on the assumption that nobody can be trusted. I think it's very possible to get a decent sense of who cares more and who cares less. For instance, look at Apple's recent pushback against scanning private user data for CSAM, and compare that with the recently publicized case of a guy having his Google account permanently closed (and being referred to the police) because he took pictures of his baby to send to a pediatrician. "Normies" think these companies are the same, that they're all selling your data and that trusting one is just as bad as trusting the other. If we can chip away at that misapprehension, maybe said normies will start giving more of their money to companies that do a better job keeping private data private, and maybe that will drive long-term trends in the market. Or maybe not! Things are bad, I agree. But I still don't believe everything is equally bad everywhere. I don't believe it's all over.

JohnFen 3y ago
> look at Apple's recent pushback against scanning private user data for CSAM I don't think that's a good example, because Apple was very much in favor of client-side scanning until they encountered a popular uproar about it. My impression of Apple is that they're very sensitive to privacy intrusions by anyone who isn't named "Apple".
- caconym_ 3y ago
  > because Apple was very much in favor of client-side scanning until they encountered a popular uproar about it. I always find it curious when I see "company changes plans due to consumer feedback" framed as a bad thing rather than a good thing, especially when they are one of a field of companies that are largely already doing the thing people were upset about. Personally, I think it's great when a company has a pragmatic motive to act in the consumer's interest rather than (or possibly in addition to) an idealistic motive, because a pragmatic motive is much more likely to stand the test of time. So, I disagree with you that it's not a good example. In fact, I think it's a great example of one of these big platforms being materially better wrt. consumer privacy than their competition. Frankly, I think your "impression of Apple [...] that they're very sensitive to privacy intrusions by anyone who isn't named 'Apple'" is exactly what I was talking about in my first comment in this thread: a cynical, unsubstantiated implication that all these platforms are equally as bad as each other, and that we've already lost the battle in the consumer space.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > I always find it curious when I see "company changes plans due to consumer feedback" framed as a bad thing rather than a good thing I wasn't framing it that way at all. Being responsive is a good thing. But in the context of this issue, that they did so means they're responsive to outcry. It doesn't seem to me to be an indication that they care more about privacy issues generally. > implication that all these platforms are equally as bad as each other As I stated in an earlier comment, I don't think this at all and certainly wasn't intending to imply it. But just because one company is better than another on these issues doesn't mean that company is good on these issues.

JohnFen 3y ago

> look at Apple's recent pushback against scanning private user data for CSAM I don't think that's a good example, because Apple was very much in favor of client-side scanning until they encountered a popular uproar about it. My impression of Apple is that they're very sensitive to privacy intrusions by anyone who isn't named "Apple".

caconym_ 3y ago
> because Apple was very much in favor of client-side scanning until they encountered a popular uproar about it. I always find it curious when I see "company changes plans due to consumer feedback" framed as a bad thing rather than a good thing, especially when they are one of a field of companies that are largely already doing the thing people were upset about. Personally, I think it's great when a company has a pragmatic motive to act in the consumer's interest rather than (or possibly in addition to) an idealistic motive, because a pragmatic motive is much more likely to stand the test of time. So, I disagree with you that it's not a good example. In fact, I think it's a great example of one of these big platforms being materially better wrt. consumer privacy than their competition. Frankly, I think your "impression of Apple [...] that they're very sensitive to privacy intrusions by anyone who isn't named 'Apple'" is exactly what I was talking about in my first comment in this thread: a cynical, unsubstantiated implication that all these platforms are equally as bad as each other, and that we've already lost the battle in the consumer space.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > I always find it curious when I see "company changes plans due to consumer feedback" framed as a bad thing rather than a good thing I wasn't framing it that way at all. Being responsive is a good thing. But in the context of this issue, that they did so means they're responsive to outcry. It doesn't seem to me to be an indication that they care more about privacy issues generally. > implication that all these platforms are equally as bad as each other As I stated in an earlier comment, I don't think this at all and certainly wasn't intending to imply it. But just because one company is better than another on these issues doesn't mean that company is good on these issues.