[mjevans]

The problem is; it used to take lots of real effort and therefore expense to investigate those facts. The results are now worth far more, and the cost is now far less.

That is a change in the structure, the unwritten expectations of society, that I agree we should resist that change.

The previously unwritten expectations should be codified into rules that should be followed.

[andy99]

These "gaslighters" seem to show up to many discussion to say "what's the big deal, it's always been that way" when it obviously hasn't. I guess it's people who want the change and are trying to justify it?

Anyway, a good analogy is photo radar. Speed limits are set knowing everybody speeds. We could now easily enforce them everywhere. But if we do, we need to raise them to an appropriate level, not the "we know you're breaking them" level. Same with what you're saying about privacy, as the cost of invading it goes down, we need different controls, we can't just be cool with it because it was always hypothetically possible to hire a private investigator to stalk someone.

[dzhiurgis]

> We could now easily enforce them everywhere

We do. Approved half a decade ago - https://www.sae.org/news/2019/04/eu-to-mandate-intelligent-s...

[vladms]

> We need to raise them to an appropriate level I do not know what most people would find an appropriate level (I for one would prefer the current level, you would prefer a raised level).

Somehow I feel the same about all the privacy discussions. Are people really understanding and would be impacted in the same why by privacy issues or is this just a fight between various interests with no connection with the actual people?

To give an (extreme) example: without social networks elections will be influenced by newspapers and television. Would "the actual person" be much better of because he is influenced "by different people"?

Sometimes I wonder how it would be if some things would be less private. (for example if wealth information would be less private, would it be harder for some people to do "dubious stuff", from straight illegal, to huge bonuses, etc.). I mean look at open source - is open source a result of "let's keep everything private and separate" idea or exactly the opposite... ?

[Yujf]

Radical transparancy only works in a world of radical acceptance. I deliberately hide some stuff I do from some people not because it is shady but because it will impact their view of me in a negative way.

[vasco]

In my grandma's village everyone knew that a neighbor was cheating, who got pregnant, and details about every single person in the village. Nowadays it's easy to track which websites I go to, but none of my neighbors have any clue about what I'm up to.

With this in mind, outright calling people that notice this gaslighters is immature. Make your point or don't.

[Karellen]

You've literally just pointed out the difference between the people who used to know what you're up to, and the people who now know what you're up to.

Anyone trying to convince you there is no difference between the two states is trying to make you ignore that difference in the world, and convince you that your perception of that difference is faulty or mistaken.

How is that not gaslighting?

But - the difference in effect is that, under the old system, the government could not immediately get a summary of that information from everyone in the village, and do so without possibility of word getting back to you. Nor could a prospective employer. Or a bank manager. Or someone half-way round the world wanting to scam you out of your life savings. Or someone wanting to run for political office. Or someone wanting to persecute cheaters/unwed mothers/"sexual deviants"/etc... for personal gain.

Yeah, back then your private life might not have been private, strictly speaking. But at least it wasn't for sale, in bulk, at bargain basement prices, to anyone looking for any kind of leverage over you.