[pessimizer]

> It seems sad that in 2022 it still needs explaining what privacy is and why its a good thing.

It should be about as sad as the fact that addition and subtraction still need to be explained. People are still being born.

> I don't wish to knock this great project, but I'm growing weary of reading what seem to be almost obligatory structures;

If this is your first time reading something like this, you need the obligatory structure. If you already know everything, it's not for you. If it's complicated and normies can't do it, that can't be helped, it's what we have. If you are a normie looking for privacy and see that it looks unintelligibly difficult, that's educational. You might be upset by that fact, and therefore support and amplify criticisms of the current regimes, software that simplifies the process, and/or legislation to protect people.

[haswell]

> It should be about as sad as the fact that addition and subtraction still need to be explained. People are still being born.

This is the key. And privacy, the lack thereof, and what to do about it - is significantly harder to grok in 2022 than your standard education coursework.

Any material that attempts to educate and empower users on this subject should be encouraged.

Markets change when consumers demand it. Until consumers know what to demand and why they should demand it, change will not happen.

Not long ago, smart homes were reserved for tinkerers and tech savvy types. Now, almost anyone can set up some smart bulbs and such.

Staying private is in that earlier stage. Every product or movement that became accessible to the masses started out as an inaccessible or impractical hobby of a few.

[nonrandomstring]

> If this is your first time reading something like this, you need the obligatory structure.

I used to think the same way, and started out writing all my educational pieces in the vernacular structure... with great patience and sensitivity to the idea that maybe some people are ambivalent about privacy.

Over the years I've come to revise that.

We create mythologies in the hacker community. Amongst the many caricatures we conjure up are "Mom", "Gran" and someones "Little brother". These hopeless half-wits will set a computer on fire as soon as touch it. The reality is that todays "Granny" was head of social informatics at IBM in the 1960s. Todays "Mom" is ferociously aware of protecting her children, eschews 'nanny cams' and gets irate at the school for posting the class photo on Facebook.

We need to revise our stereotypes and should seriously ask; who are these imaginary people who are "reading this for the first time"?

Part of the reason I think we create these mythological half-wits is that it gives us a simple explanation as to why the uptake of dignity respecting technology is slow. The reality is that it's actively impeded, but we're not quite ready to fully take that on-board and point at the culprits.

Part of the solution I think is to adopt more direct speech, to stop treading on eggshells around privacy and start going in hard with a more mature understanding of where people are in 2022 with respect to their threat models around different technologies. Regular people get that the horsemen of the infopocalypse are bogus, that their phones are fundamentally insecure, and they want change.

> If it's complicated and normies [1] can't do it, that can't be helped

We do need to up the game in so many places, as you say, education and UI are still paramount.

> You might be upset by that fact, and therefore support and amplify criticisms of the current regimes, software that simplifies the process, and/or legislation to protect people.

You raise a really important issue. There's a lot of hostility towards advocates of rights respecting technology. I always assumed that came, at least here in forums like HN, from those directly involved in advertising and surveillance activities who see their livelihood threatened. But now I think there's more to it. I get about eighty percent very positive sentiment toward my Digital Vegan book, ten percent justifiably critical, but there's ten percent who are disproportionately angered and indignant.

I think the psychology is really complex and involves a kind of defensive rationalisation, learned helplessness, Stockholm syndrome and some sunk-cost bias. Some will vigorously shout down opponents in defending their right to be spied on and abused. Something's amiss there.

[1] sorry I used that word, it's demeaning