you have pointed out a valid concern that doesn’t make this one less true at all.
As far as I understand joepie91 talks about people whom genuinely want to learn about privacy and instead are just mocked or judged (and in sometimes also harassed) because they still need/want/prefer to use services e.g. Facebook, Google.
Sometimes we start the conversation about privacy in a really “aggressive mode” way and tend to bring the conversation on and on even after the people explicitly said " I don’t care about privacy" or " I still need to use [service]" . it seems we ignore this:
Recognize and accept that caring about privacy does not mean it needs to be your primary purpose in life. Someone can simultaneously care about privacy, but also refuse to stop using Facebook because they care more about talking to a long-lost friend who is not reachable anywhere else. They can care about privacy, but care more about keeping their job which requires using Slack. They’re not enthusiasts, and they shouldn’t need to be to have privacy in their life - that’s the whole point of the privacy movement, isn’t it?
Again, you made a vaild point, but one problem doesn’t exclude the other.
Definitely, but presenting the argument to soften a hardcore privacy nutjob stance, while can be helpful, also presents a problem like I showed.
I always speak so much about OPSEC and always tell, ask and present solutions based on threat models for people. This is not what most privacy nutjobs really do, who think they are saving the world with their elitism.
Atleast for the ~9k or so people on my reddit r/privatelife, and for the ~300 on c/privatelife, I have somewhat managed to crush this elitism and bring them closer to attaining extremely healthy privacy levels, without suggesting to install custom ROM or buy iPhone (which is snake oil IMHO). Changing debate away from elitism, helping people for the collective good and condemning such nonsensical rhetorics like the chat I presented, a common phenomenon, is critical and the need of the hour.
you have pointed out a valid concern that doesn’t make this one less true at all.
As far as I understand joepie91 talks about people whom genuinely want to learn about privacy and instead are just mocked or judged (and in sometimes also harassed) because they still need/want/prefer to use services e.g. Facebook, Google.
Sometimes we start the conversation about privacy in a really “aggressive mode” way and tend to bring the conversation on and on even after the people explicitly said " I don’t care about privacy" or " I still need to use [service]" . it seems we ignore this:
Again, you made a vaild point, but one problem doesn’t exclude the other.
I think it is better to ask joepie91 for a clarification.
Definitely, but presenting the argument to soften a hardcore privacy nutjob stance, while can be helpful, also presents a problem like I showed.
I always speak so much about OPSEC and always tell, ask and present solutions based on threat models for people. This is not what most privacy nutjobs really do, who think they are saving the world with their elitism.
Atleast for the ~9k or so people on my reddit r/privatelife, and for the ~300 on c/privatelife, I have somewhat managed to crush this elitism and bring them closer to attaining extremely healthy privacy levels, without suggesting to install custom ROM or buy iPhone (which is snake oil IMHO). Changing debate away from elitism, helping people for the collective good and condemning such nonsensical rhetorics like the chat I presented, a common phenomenon, is critical and the need of the hour.