• Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The mindset about privacy is just all wrong. It’s not an all or nothing game. Any privacy gain is a net positive to no privacy at all.

    To many people conflate privacy with anonymity or try “accomplish” privacy without understanding what they want to be private from and why.

    • bananymous@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Exactly. Now to click the “copy text” button and keep your fine words handy for my next convo with a friend who thinks life with Facebook and Google is grand.

  • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The one saying they use copilot for math problems is the worst part. It demonstrates their complete lack of critical thinking.

  • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Wouldn’t it be better to at least put a modicum of effort in to have some privacy, than to put zero effort in and have none at all?

    • LukácsFan1917@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      If everyone started using encrypted messaging software, using devices that are resilient to all but the highest levels of forensics, and stuck to social spaces which prevent bots and alt accounts hosted on servers in countries their own nation’s law enforcement doesn’t have access to, it would massively increase the costs of surveillance. Every layer of that increases the price.

      When you let surveilling you become profitable and easy, expect it to get worse. More obtrusive. After all, you’ve displayed compliance up to that point.

      • bananymous@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes, that’s it. As I’ve told friends on several occasions, you know why I encrypt my online life and guard my privacy as if, you know, freedom depended on privacy? Because fuck them, that’s why.

        It takes my time and effort, but I just can’t let the bastards win just that little bit more easily. All cops and corps are bastards (ACAB).

  • underwire212@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    “My prehistoric brain can only think in ‘binary’ and doesn’t understand that development of a successful threat model doesn’t (and often can’t) be perfect, but any incremental change to my behavior and online practices in a way to prevent sensitive information from being shared and potentially utilized by malicious actors is a plus.

    Instead of thinking about all of that, I’m going to reduce the whole subject to a nice and neat logical fallacy of ‘online privacy is terrible nowadays, thus it doesn’t matter what I do’ “

  • 31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Do you remember when it was commonly advised to use fake names and birthdays on online forms, and when “spyware” was a term?

  • AAA@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The claim to have “nothing to hide” was not just born our of ignorance, but also out of comfort - to not having to do anything about it.

    Now that even the last one accepted that they do indeed have something to hide, but in order to justify their own inaction, it’s labeled as inevitable: privacy is not real.

    They are lying to themselves, because doing otherwise would mean they have to admit being wrong.

    • 🦇 Batman 🦇@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      i think its a propganda to destroy privacy like the one “police are public protector” only the high ups and they know what police means but the general public dont .

    • Manalith@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The ‘nothing to hide’ argument seems a lot like that ‘first they came for socialists and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist…’ quote. Sure you have nothing to hide right now, but what happens when something you weren’t hiding becomes a target.

  • Fusty@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Is that the same as the misnomer or fallacy that privacy is dead?

  • Daniel@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t think I’ve had an issue on Firefox other than some sites saying “unsupported browser,” which is really the site’s fault.

    • wrekone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I found Firefox to be much slower than Chrome… 10 years ago. Now, not only is it just as fast, it’s a much better experience all around.

  • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    “chrome was hogging up my ram” is the dumbest part of all of this lmao, this person’s decisionmaking is completely driven by placebo and it’s hilarious

    • Tangentism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      If it wasnt beaten by this, it comes a very close 2nd: “Firefox is trash at loading HTML websites”.

      You can tell that fucker spends their time gibbering techno waffle bollcoks to old people!

  • FindME@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why? It’s because they never arrived at their current behavior by a systematic progression of logical steps. Most of the behaviors we exhibit aren’t that way. We just offer a post-hoc explanation/justification. They use edge, so they defend their action with any argument assertion they can think of.

    It’s also (sort of) because they want to tip the proverbial scale towards their current use. Change takes effort and can be irritating. They have their list of positives about edge (faster, easier, etc.), and they downplay the negatives such as privacy.

  • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I mean, yeah, privacy isn’t really a thing in our digital surveillance age. Doesn’t mean I’m not gonna make it as hard as possible for them. Make em work for it.

  • FortifiedAttack [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ultimately, the sentiment isn’t completely wrong. Using a different browser isn’t going to save you from being tracked. Using one or multiple browser extensions isn’t going to save you from being tracked. Using a VPN isn’t even going to save you from being tracked.

    Accounts are pretty much required to use most sites, and many also require connecting a phone number or other personal details. Privacy is actively discouraged, and attempting to pursue it leaves you with many hardships – by design I would argue. You buy a product on one site, with no prior search history about it, and suddenly you start getting emails from unrelated sites about similar products. In capitalism, any information about your habits and interests also becomes a commodity. Why shouldn’t people dismiss privacy in favor of convenience, in such a system? It seems futile to even try.

    And if your government is determined to figure out who you are online, then it will. Don’t make the mistake of thinking they don’t know what you’ve been up to, here or otherwise.

    • ivn@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      It isn’t completely right either. Browsers, extensions and, only in some cases, VPNs can save you from being tracked by some. You are describing first party tracking but the point is mostly to prevent third party tracking. An adblocker and an email relay goes a long way.

      I agree with the rest though. Regulation is the only way.