>While the post is great, terrifying, and seems to contain only true and verifiable information, I’m not sure what we expect.
Well we expect people and corporations to fix a problem when confronted with it. That is what we expect.
> „Normal“ people will not read this, nor be able to understand, nor gauge or grasp the impact. It’s become way to complex. We can’t simply stop using mentioned services anymore as a society.
Have to give you a pass on "normal" people. I don't know any. I see no reason why we cannot go without the (by the way) unmentioned services or why we cannot change them to be more privacy conscious.
>Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to teach:
No it would be more reasonable to teach that privacy is vitally important to have a functioning society and economy. Anyone claiming different think they can exploit the information disparity between you and them to make money in the short term.
>1. You have no privacy, it is impossible to ensure or guarantee privacy, and there’s no incentive at all for anyone to ensure privacy. (Scott McNeally of Sun said that already in the late 1990s).
Well I respect Scott, but this is not his great moment. Let's change this to be still completely true: You have no property, it is impossible to ensure or guarantee property and there's no incentive at all for anyone to ensure property. Well we did find a way to actually do ensure property. It is called the law (and a government to enforce it). Just an idea to use this tried and tested concept on privacy as well.
>2. There is no security and every kind of security has been, was designed to, or will be compromised.
First this has always been true. Every lock can be picked. Fortunately not everyone can pick a lock. That is the reason why most of us still lock the door.
>3. All your digital information is already public or will become public at some point. (btw: Every top-tier consultancy operates under that assumption)
You mean those top-tier consutancy firms mentiond in this book: "The Big Con" by Muzzucato and Collington, Penguin, 2023? I can see that they sell the assumption, but they are not operating by it. If that were true McKinsey for example would have known their advice to Purdue Pharma would become public and they would lose big on it.
In short people who claim privacy is not important mean: _your privacy_ is not important and they are overly confident they can keep ahead of the information disparity to keep themselves private. See how hard, ironically, Google is working to keep all their information private in a public anti-trust trail.