4 ms·

"We need to help inform our friends and families about how easily things can be misused against their will;" With the 'convenience' world of the modern interne

"We need to help inform our friends and families about how easily things can be misused against their will;" With the 'convenience' world of the modern internet and millions of users addicted to smartphones and Social Media I defy you to show me that that approach actually works (to date there's little or no evidence that it does). Telling a heroin addict to give up doesn't work, same goes for 'electronic heroin'. I'd bet you've not given up your smartphone or Social Media. And how about your gmail account?

rolandog 1y ago
> Telling a heroin addict to give up doesn't work, same goes for 'electronic heroin'. I'd bet you've not given up your smartphone or Social Media. And how about your gmail account? It's all about continuous improvements. We shouldn't "No true Scotsman"-fallacy ourselves into inaction.
- 0xEF 1y ago
  The thing is, for the surveillance state to be completely obliterated, what the previous commenter said is only a sliver of what has to happen. Yes, consumers would have to put all their devices in the trash, disconnect everything from the Internet and never use it again, etc, but also start tearing out telephone poles, police vehicles, anything with a camera or microphone, etc. That is daunting, so it's understandable why so many either just give up the fight or satisfy themselves with some limp-wristed attempt like just running an ad blocker or VPN or something and calling it good. The diligence required to stay either low or off (if you are lucky) the radar, as it were, is so exhausting as to be impossible for the common tech consumer. I tried it, for a long time and it came to be known as a War of Attrition in my head because it is one that I no longer believe we can win, having passed the point of no return by trading our privacy for safety and convenience over the course of three decades; a victory by inches for the tech companies, to be sure. The funny part is, my problem was never with hackers, so the way the rhetoric spewed over the years claimed that this is all for my own safety never clicked with me. "Your data is safe with us!" Okay, who are you, who are you connected to or funded by and what cause do I have to trust you? I learned at a pretty young age that if someone is telling you "this is for your own good" they're the ones exploiting you. So now we have copious amounts of categorized data in the hands of entities that not only make massive profit from it, but will (if they have not already) turn it over to the increasingly conservative world governments who enjoy making lists of people they don't like. And we all know where that leads.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    "The diligence required to stay either low or off (if you are lucky) the radar, as it were, is so exhausting as to be impossible for the common tech consumer." Right, I nevertheless still attempt to keep a low profile by having no Social Media or Google (phone) accounts, no gmail, using rooted phones sans Google apps, blocking both ads and JavaScript, forcing utilities to send me bills by snail mail, etc.; but as you say it's really a lost cause especially if one takes it seriously and really wants to remain anonymous on the net. I act more out of principal than anything else. Also, I'm quite happy for family and people who know me to just contact me by phone, SMS and or email—or even snail mail (if you read my subsequent reply to the earlier comment it's pretty clear I've no Social Media addiction, not caring a damn about that stuff makes lowering one's profile easier). I take the view that government already knows full well who I am especially given that it once employed me to do surveillance work. (No, I'm not acting hypocritically here, that work wasn't sussing out citizens but keeping an eye on nuclear materials—stopping it falling into wrong hands.) What really annoys me is how pernicious and underhanded surveillance capitalism is. For example, despite the steps I've taken above, it only takes one or two people with Google accounts to enter my details into their phone and gmail accounts for Google to figure out who I am. Telling friends and acquaintances not to enter one's details into their phones is a hopeless task. Google can further tighen up my address details by 'triangulation'—cross-referencing it using my neighbors' WiFi to get my SSID info, etc. Yes, I could hide that info but it's too much trouble. In my other reply it's clear that governments dropped the ball early on with respect to user privacy, what I didn't mention was that it didn't take them long to realize that having Big Tech to do the heavy lifting with respect to surveiling citizens was and is a great advantage. Thus, their great reluctance to act. Dodging both Big Tech and government is essentially fruitless. The best I can do is to render the data collected for advertising purposes worthless. To date, at least to my knowledge, I've been successful as I've never received any targeted advertising. But then how would I ever know given that I've always been very efficient at blocking ads? :-)
    - 0xEF 1y ago
      > I take the view that government already knows full well who I am especially given that it once employed me to do surveillance work. I have to imagine you have some stories or lessons worth sharing, for sure. There was a point where I said the same thing; I didn't really care if the government knew my activities and whatnot because I was not hiding anything, and well, part of participating as a tax-payer in a functioning society involves records and information. That I get. However, regardless of where you or anyone reading this stands on the political spectrum, particularly in the US, you'd have to admit that there's some trepidation regarding that massive amount of information about each of us that is out there and how it can be used against you, even if you have done nothing wrong. To use a pointed example, I would rather not be labeled and treated as a dissenter because I played Dungeons & Dragons online with a person who identifies as queer or trans, even if I may or may not have been completely unaware of that fact. That's just one such extreme example, but it does not seem so extreme anymore, and with each passing week, it seems like using information against people in that exact way is getting more and more normalized. My biggest fear about the US and Big Tech collaboratively heading in that direction is being actively realized, and that is ultimately what had caused me to...not "give up," but more akin to "stop fighting." Don't have the energy anymore, barely enough to sweep up some of my own footprints, let alone those of people I care about that DO have that social media addiction you and I lack. Appreciate the discussion and your perspective, given that it is a little more "insider" than most. I wish I had more to add, but I can see my cynicism creeping back into my replies. note: since my example is a hot-button, I want to ensure that I am clear about my own stance, here. I do not care how anyone identifies, that's up to them and not for me to decide for them. All I care about is whether or not they're a good person, treating others with the same kindness, respect and support that they would like to receive. Bottom line.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "It's all about continuous improvements." Until recently the two greatest and most financial monopolies in history were the Dutch and British East India Companies but their power and wealth were amassed over a period of a hundred or more years not in about a generation as has happened here with Big Tech. Twenty or so years ago after the Dot-com bubble had burst, opportunistic techies and investors caught everyone off guard by finding ways of not only turning the Internet's debris and discarded detritus into the fastest and largest moneymaking concerns in all of human history but they also managed to monopolize the web to the point where they now essentially control and or influence just about every type of online activity. Nowadays, Big Tech effectively owns the internet. What they did was unprecedented, they hijacked control of the internet by manipulating its users through psychological means that would have even shocked the likes of Edward Bernays and David Ogilvy, those masters of propaganda and advertising would not have thought such a degree of control at all feasible. We now have well over five billion people on Social Media (>63% of the world's population) and Google dominates search with just on 90% of the market share with some 5 trillion search results per year—all of which they've achieved in just 20 or so years. These are unrivalled and staggering—in fact terrifying—statistics! Not even that evil but brilliant propagandist Goebbels—who is often touted as the greatest manipulator in history—would ever have dreamed such a huge turnaround would have been possible in such a short time. In a speech to the party faithful on 9 January 1928 he discusses the nature of propaganda and how to bring about change in the worldview of a population with carefully crafted ideas so as to manipulate their minds into believing the propagandist's message but he never extended that to the notion of making 'convenience' so indispensable to the point where addiction takes hold and reason is abandoned. Like a ratchet on a cog, once Big Tech entraps users they find escape or turning back impossible. (In the light of events of recent years, it's well worth reading that speech.) It truly beats me how you can say "it's all about continuous improvements". In my view Big Tech's unregulated manipulation of human minds on such a monumental scale is one of the most disastrous events in human history. The strategies that those behind Big Tech concocted were no doubt truly brilliant—so brilliant that even regulators and governments were blinded to both their negative effects on users and to the inevitable monopolies that would form. Their own addiction parasitized their minds against seeing what were blatantly obvious dangers at the outset. For 20 years they thus took no regulatory action. Reversing the problem is now nigh on impossible.

rolandog 1y ago

> Telling a heroin addict to give up doesn't work, same goes for 'electronic heroin'. I'd bet you've not given up your smartphone or Social Media. And how about your gmail account? It's all about continuous improvements. We shouldn't "No true Scotsman"-fallacy ourselves into inaction.

0xEF 1y ago
The thing is, for the surveillance state to be completely obliterated, what the previous commenter said is only a sliver of what has to happen. Yes, consumers would have to put all their devices in the trash, disconnect everything from the Internet and never use it again, etc, but also start tearing out telephone poles, police vehicles, anything with a camera or microphone, etc. That is daunting, so it's understandable why so many either just give up the fight or satisfy themselves with some limp-wristed attempt like just running an ad blocker or VPN or something and calling it good. The diligence required to stay either low or off (if you are lucky) the radar, as it were, is so exhausting as to be impossible for the common tech consumer. I tried it, for a long time and it came to be known as a War of Attrition in my head because it is one that I no longer believe we can win, having passed the point of no return by trading our privacy for safety and convenience over the course of three decades; a victory by inches for the tech companies, to be sure. The funny part is, my problem was never with hackers, so the way the rhetoric spewed over the years claimed that this is all for my own safety never clicked with me. "Your data is safe with us!" Okay, who are you, who are you connected to or funded by and what cause do I have to trust you? I learned at a pretty young age that if someone is telling you "this is for your own good" they're the ones exploiting you. So now we have copious amounts of categorized data in the hands of entities that not only make massive profit from it, but will (if they have not already) turn it over to the increasingly conservative world governments who enjoy making lists of people they don't like. And we all know where that leads.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "The diligence required to stay either low or off (if you are lucky) the radar, as it were, is so exhausting as to be impossible for the common tech consumer." Right, I nevertheless still attempt to keep a low profile by having no Social Media or Google (phone) accounts, no gmail, using rooted phones sans Google apps, blocking both ads and JavaScript, forcing utilities to send me bills by snail mail, etc.; but as you say it's really a lost cause especially if one takes it seriously and really wants to remain anonymous on the net. I act more out of principal than anything else. Also, I'm quite happy for family and people who know me to just contact me by phone, SMS and or email—or even snail mail (if you read my subsequent reply to the earlier comment it's pretty clear I've no Social Media addiction, not caring a damn about that stuff makes lowering one's profile easier). I take the view that government already knows full well who I am especially given that it once employed me to do surveillance work. (No, I'm not acting hypocritically here, that work wasn't sussing out citizens but keeping an eye on nuclear materials—stopping it falling into wrong hands.) What really annoys me is how pernicious and underhanded surveillance capitalism is. For example, despite the steps I've taken above, it only takes one or two people with Google accounts to enter my details into their phone and gmail accounts for Google to figure out who I am. Telling friends and acquaintances not to enter one's details into their phones is a hopeless task. Google can further tighen up my address details by 'triangulation'—cross-referencing it using my neighbors' WiFi to get my SSID info, etc. Yes, I could hide that info but it's too much trouble. In my other reply it's clear that governments dropped the ball early on with respect to user privacy, what I didn't mention was that it didn't take them long to realize that having Big Tech to do the heavy lifting with respect to surveiling citizens was and is a great advantage. Thus, their great reluctance to act. Dodging both Big Tech and government is essentially fruitless. The best I can do is to render the data collected for advertising purposes worthless. To date, at least to my knowledge, I've been successful as I've never received any targeted advertising. But then how would I ever know given that I've always been very efficient at blocking ads? :-)
  - 0xEF 1y ago
    > I take the view that government already knows full well who I am especially given that it once employed me to do surveillance work. I have to imagine you have some stories or lessons worth sharing, for sure. There was a point where I said the same thing; I didn't really care if the government knew my activities and whatnot because I was not hiding anything, and well, part of participating as a tax-payer in a functioning society involves records and information. That I get. However, regardless of where you or anyone reading this stands on the political spectrum, particularly in the US, you'd have to admit that there's some trepidation regarding that massive amount of information about each of us that is out there and how it can be used against you, even if you have done nothing wrong. To use a pointed example, I would rather not be labeled and treated as a dissenter because I played Dungeons & Dragons online with a person who identifies as queer or trans, even if I may or may not have been completely unaware of that fact. That's just one such extreme example, but it does not seem so extreme anymore, and with each passing week, it seems like using information against people in that exact way is getting more and more normalized. My biggest fear about the US and Big Tech collaboratively heading in that direction is being actively realized, and that is ultimately what had caused me to...not "give up," but more akin to "stop fighting." Don't have the energy anymore, barely enough to sweep up some of my own footprints, let alone those of people I care about that DO have that social media addiction you and I lack. Appreciate the discussion and your perspective, given that it is a little more "insider" than most. I wish I had more to add, but I can see my cynicism creeping back into my replies. note: since my example is a hot-button, I want to ensure that I am clear about my own stance, here. I do not care how anyone identifies, that's up to them and not for me to decide for them. All I care about is whether or not they're a good person, treating others with the same kindness, respect and support that they would like to receive. Bottom line.
hilbert42 1y ago
"It's all about continuous improvements." Until recently the two greatest and most financial monopolies in history were the Dutch and British East India Companies but their power and wealth were amassed over a period of a hundred or more years not in about a generation as has happened here with Big Tech. Twenty or so years ago after the Dot-com bubble had burst, opportunistic techies and investors caught everyone off guard by finding ways of not only turning the Internet's debris and discarded detritus into the fastest and largest moneymaking concerns in all of human history but they also managed to monopolize the web to the point where they now essentially control and or influence just about every type of online activity. Nowadays, Big Tech effectively owns the internet. What they did was unprecedented, they hijacked control of the internet by manipulating its users through psychological means that would have even shocked the likes of Edward Bernays and David Ogilvy, those masters of propaganda and advertising would not have thought such a degree of control at all feasible. We now have well over five billion people on Social Media (>63% of the world's population) and Google dominates search with just on 90% of the market share with some 5 trillion search results per year—all of which they've achieved in just 20 or so years. These are unrivalled and staggering—in fact terrifying—statistics! Not even that evil but brilliant propagandist Goebbels—who is often touted as the greatest manipulator in history—would ever have dreamed such a huge turnaround would have been possible in such a short time. In a speech to the party faithful on 9 January 1928 he discusses the nature of propaganda and how to bring about change in the worldview of a population with carefully crafted ideas so as to manipulate their minds into believing the propagandist's message but he never extended that to the notion of making 'convenience' so indispensable to the point where addiction takes hold and reason is abandoned. Like a ratchet on a cog, once Big Tech entraps users they find escape or turning back impossible. (In the light of events of recent years, it's well worth reading that speech.) It truly beats me how you can say "it's all about continuous improvements". In my view Big Tech's unregulated manipulation of human minds on such a monumental scale is one of the most disastrous events in human history. The strategies that those behind Big Tech concocted were no doubt truly brilliant—so brilliant that even regulators and governments were blinded to both their negative effects on users and to the inevitable monopolies that would form. Their own addiction parasitized their minds against seeing what were blatantly obvious dangers at the outset. For 20 years they thus took no regulatory action. Reversing the problem is now nigh on impossible.