[chr15m]

> you’re criticizing a powerful politician, or talking about your experiences with abuse or addiction, or discussing embarrassing medical issues you’re facing

This is not the problem. Even if, like millions, you are not talking about these things online, these systems still place you in danger. Even if you are a perfect, clean, compliant citizen these privacy-destroying systems place you in danger.

Fundamentally these systems expose you to coercion, extortion, blackmail, ID theft, etc. by criminals and immoral people who want money or power over you. There are countless examples of bad actors inside and outside these systems obtaining access to innocent people's private data and misusing it to their detriment.

This is the strongest argument against these bad ideas. Arguments that paint innocent, privacy-seeking people as suspicious or immoral in any way, should not be used.

It is rational and moral to seek privacy for your own safety and the safety of those you care for. Don't let them argue otherwise.

[scotty79]

> these systems expose you to coercion, extortion, blackmail, ID theft, etc. by criminals and immoral people

I'd prefer to have safety from that regardless of privacy.

I think privacy is a stopgap semi-solution to those problems that might lessen the pressure to actually solve them in a reasonable manner.

[iamnothere]

It is impossible to “solve” problems like this, only manage them intelligently. Human societies have certain failure modes that are constant across history, and it’s foolish to assume that you will ever fully eliminate them. This means that reducing potential methods of political repression (via privacy, for instance) is more critical than attempting to create an impossibly perfect, airtight system, at least if you care about individual liberties.

[scotty79]

> Human societies have certain failure modes that are constant across history, and it’s foolish to assume that you will ever fully eliminate them.

Technology shapes every bit of human culture. Nothing is constant.

While I agree that solving anything 100% is rarely ever achieved, there should be, at some point, an ability to mostly solve things in multiple ways. Even some that don't utilize privacy.

[AlienRobot]

If service A asks you for a photo of your ID/face to confirm age

and service B asks for a photo of your ID/face to give you access to your account

that's basically using the same password in two places except you will never be able to rotate your password.

[downrightmike]

Citizen. we have displayed subversive material on your machine for 10 nanseconds on the following occasions. Please report to your door, police will intake you for ISOCUBE detention.

[intended]

Sadly your take doesn’t matter since the other voting bloc is parents and people concerned about their kids.

I wish this resulted in techies spending more time to look at the substance of the harms playing out, however I see denial of the situation altogether more than anything else.

[randusername]

> Sadly your take doesn’t matter since the other voting bloc is parents and people concerned about their kids.

I used to think the "think of the children" voting bloc was cowardly for hoping the government will do their job for them in setting strict ground rules so they don't have to be the uncool parent.

The closer I get to having children of my own, the more I understand why it seems like the only option. Fundamentally this is delaying indoctrination in digital consumerism, which is not parents versus themselves anymore. More like parents versus the entire economy.

Government might be the only champion for that kind of fight, but what a mess it will make of everything for them to get involved.

[monssooon]

I think it is going to be the time to get off the internet in general, as much as possible