| > 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 |