> if you're an average user (note: Hacker News users aren't average users) your ISP already knows which porn sites you visit, and your privacy is dependent enti

> if you're an average user (note: Hacker News users aren't average users) your ISP already knows which porn sites you visit, and your privacy is dependent entirely on your ISP not sharing that information with the government or other organizations. You're doing this thing where you pretend that public policy is only required to consider the average person's needs on their most average day. The same rhetoric can be used to argue against the vast majority of your personal freedoms. Imagine for a second that freedom of speech doesn't exist yet. If you're just like the average person who has nothing of value to say on the average day, then you don't need freedom of speech. Utilizing freedom of speech isn't the norm, therefore demanding it as a fundamental right is unreasonable. Nobody cares and why should they, they don't have anything important to say. Case closed. > If you look closely you'll see that none of your concerns are actually valid. No, you just severely underestimate the challenges of designing and implementing a system that would likely take many PhD-lifetimes of effort if you wanted to be confident that your implementation doesn't completely destroy whatever is left of our online privacy. You're potentially creating a digital panopticon, one that doesn't have any escape hatches like the current internet and yet you naively brush every concern away as "trivial" while your "solution" to one of the most pressing concerns depends on good faith collaboration from the website operator and even then incorrectly presumes that the Referer header is the only way that the government could possibly learn that information.