Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Candid Naivety of Geeks

ploum.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: The Candid Naivety of Geeks

#81

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

disambiguation wrote: post #53

Naivety has layers. You either die a normie who doesn't care about privacy, or you live long enough to become a schizo who knows how bad things really are. Try bringing up at the dinner table the NSA dragnet or always-on backdoors embedded in consumer routers and CPUs. Everything is tracked, everything is logged, its been this way for a long time and there's nothing you can do about it. You have zero privacy in the i…

"You have zero privacy in the internet and you're an idiot if you think otherwise."

This type of statement usually comes from the "schizo" who is "living on the internet", not the "normie" who has a life away from the internet and only uses it occasionally. It is a common "all-or-nothing" perspective that has been shared on HN for at least a decade. Meanwhile so-called "tech" companies spend millions on lobbying against privacy regulation and pay millions in fines and settlements for violations.

Perhaps whether one has "privacy" is not as important as whether one believes they might be able to get it. As long as the possibility of "getting it" exists in people's minds, and people take action toward that end, then so-called "tech" companies face a potentially existential threat. It interferes with the progression of their only "business model". The "all-or-nothing" view of "privacy" seen in HN comments is particularly suspect when one considers that those invested in so-called "tech" companies have a financial interest in erasing the _possibility_ of "privacy", i.e., the motivation to take action, however small and seemingly insignificant, from people's minds.

There are ways to use the internet that send minimal useful data to so-called "tech" companies and there are ways to use the internet that send maximum amounts of data to so-called "tech" companies. Neither is "internet privacy" in the absolute sense. But each has a different effect on the "business model" of so-called "tech" commpanies.

More importantly, less use of the internet may result in less data being shared with so-called "tech" companies. Good luck getting the "schizo" to reduce their internet use. It is not suprising the "schizo" would suggest an absolutist standard of "internet privacy" where achieving it is impossible. For the "schizo" who is wedded to the computer, this is probably true.

Re: The Candid Naivety of Geeks

#82

Post by kortilla »

rini17 wrote: post #77
kortilla wrote: post #59

The cognitive dissonance in the article when it comes to Signal and Protonmail is the same thing the author is deriding with people trusting Apple et al. Apple has far more to lose monetarily than protonmail if it comes out that Apple sells off iMessage contents or similar. I agree with the ideal of the article and the plight, but the shilling of Signal and Protonmail absolutely destroy the message because it goes ri…

Even if you self-host on own domain using libre software, you have to trust the registrar and certificate authorities. Thinking you can cut out all trusted third parties is naive,too.

No you don’t. The CAs are only necessary if you want random public devices to be able to validate your domain.

And you don’t have to trust the registrar because of what I just said. You don’t need to depend on PKI.

Re: The Candid Naivety of Geeks

#83

Post by keybored »

disambiguation wrote: post #80
keybored wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you care? One comment ago you personally didn’t care. And I’m responding to someone who said that “there's nothing you can do about it”. Where was the in for anyone to take the “first step”? No, I’m not taking the first step towards facing the solution since you already said that’s off the table.[1] Now you can get hung up on someone pointing out that this fatalism is intellectually a three-feet deep pond and try…

You're really desperate to get this dunk, but you don't have to try so hard. Its really simple: prove me wrong.

Prove what wrong? You keep changing what your message is.

I’m not a fatalist because I believe there’s always a way to remove oppressive measures. The world got to this point through a series of events that favored certain groups. It’s possible to make a world that serves everyone.

Re: The Candid Naivety of Geeks

#84

Post by margalabargala »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #81
disambiguation wrote: post #53

Naivety has layers. You either die a normie who doesn't care about privacy, or you live long enough to become a schizo who knows how bad things really are. Try bringing up at the dinner table the NSA dragnet or always-on backdoors embedded in consumer routers and CPUs. Everything is tracked, everything is logged, its been this way for a long time and there's nothing you can do about it. You have zero privacy in the i…

"You have zero privacy in the internet and you're an idiot if you think otherwise." This type of statement usually comes from the "schizo" who is "living on the internet", not the "normie" who has a life away from the internet and only uses it occasionally. It is a common "all-or-nothing" perspective that has been shared on HN for at least a decade. Meanwhile so-called "tech" companies spend millions on lobbying agai…

Despite your assertions that someone who thinks that lacking privacy online is indicative of a specific hallucinatory mental illness, it may surprise you to learn that plenty of people lacking that mental illness think similarly.

It's less a function of mental illness or time spent online, and more simply pointing out the old-as-writing state of affairs where companies will do whatever they can do to you to make more money. See the "Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir" for a timeline of this.

It is not hallucinatory to observe that companies take advantage of people given the opportunity to do so, and it is not indicative of mental illness to be unhappy about being on the receiving end.

Re: The Candid Naivety of Geeks

#85

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #81
disambiguation wrote: post #53

Naivety has layers. You either die a normie who doesn't care about privacy, or you live long enough to become a schizo who knows how bad things really are. Try bringing up at the dinner table the NSA dragnet or always-on backdoors embedded in consumer routers and CPUs. Everything is tracked, everything is logged, its been this way for a long time and there's nothing you can do about it. You have zero privacy in the i…

"You have zero privacy in the internet and you're an idiot if you think otherwise." This type of statement usually comes from the "schizo" who is "living on the internet", not the "normie" who has a life away from the internet and only uses it occasionally. It is a common "all-or-nothing" perspective that has been shared on HN for at least a decade. Meanwhile so-called "tech" companies spend millions on lobbying agai…

NB. The term "schizo" and "normie" are the parent commenter's choice of words, not mine. Hence each is in quotes. No reference to actual, medically-diagnosed mental illness is made; I presumed the parent commenter's terms are simply another attempt to divide internet users into groups. This "us" and "them" perspective, e.g., "technical" and "non-technical", "schizo" and "normie", etc., as silly as it is, pervades a majority of HN comments.

Re: The Candid Naivety of Geeks

#86

Post by disambiguation »

keybored wrote: post #83
disambiguation wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're really desperate to get this dunk, but you don't have to try so hard. Its really simple: prove me wrong.

Prove what wrong? You keep changing what your message is. I’m not a fatalist because I believe there’s always a way to remove oppressive measures. The world got to this point through a series of events that favored certain groups. It’s possible to make a world that serves everyone.

You've confused absence of comprehension for absence of argument, but your lack of counter point is abundantly clear as you've resorted to projecting a lot of hot air. Do YOU even care about privacy? I think you're just self righteous contrarian, arguing from feelings, not facts.

My message is clear and consistent, here is your chewed food:

I care about privacy. I don't care for privacy enthusiasm, which means using products like VPNs and Signal that pretend to give you privacy but really don't. It is impossible to have a modern internet experience and real privacy at the same time, and I don't pretend otherwise. I have yet to see a real solution - not a made up hope-based idealism - to this problem. You either use internet and accept it (when i say i don't really care) or stop using the internet and go live in the woods.

Re: The Candid Naivety of Geeks

#87

Post by disambiguation »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #81
disambiguation wrote: post #53

Naivety has layers. You either die a normie who doesn't care about privacy, or you live long enough to become a schizo who knows how bad things really are. Try bringing up at the dinner table the NSA dragnet or always-on backdoors embedded in consumer routers and CPUs. Everything is tracked, everything is logged, its been this way for a long time and there's nothing you can do about it. You have zero privacy in the i…

"You have zero privacy in the internet and you're an idiot if you think otherwise." This type of statement usually comes from the "schizo" who is "living on the internet", not the "normie" who has a life away from the internet and only uses it occasionally. It is a common "all-or-nothing" perspective that has been shared on HN for at least a decade. Meanwhile so-called "tech" companies spend millions on lobbying agai…

Au contraire, the vast majority of normies are married to the internet via TikTok and Instagram, the difference is the schizo knows it. The divisive hyperbole is my own dramatic flair bc of my own frustration with the issue, not a conspiracy to divide.

Re: The Candid Naivety of Geeks

#88

Post by alfiedotwtf »

brody_hamer wrote: post #56
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #45

“spammers are more consistent at making SPF, DKIM, and DMARC correct than are legitimate senders.” LOL!

Yea this one confused me. DKIM and DMARC are about preventing impersonation. Haha. Nothing to do with unsolicited email.

I was laughing at the point that they are doing the extra steps to be compliant to all pass DKIM and DMARC yet legitimate companies are still running open relays.
Post reply on HN