You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Resteem The Deadpost Initiative! - Week 16 - Share your most undervalued work + week 15 winners ($11 STEEM prize pool)
Here's one that seemed to slip by people's notice.... Thanks for the opportunity to give it another chance.
https://steemit.com/writing/@fireawaymarmot/privacy-illusion-or-reality
Excellent thinking, and differentiation between privacy and secrecy which I think most people think of as one single unit without realizing the different nature between them. Also very current topic now that we are entering a new economy with cryptocurrencies as to what currencies and models we are going to adopt for mainstream.
Thank you very much. It will be something to watch for going forward...
Amazing post. You bring up a lot of great points. I have always hated that line, "If you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide." such BS. Very thought provoking! Earned yourself a new follower! :)
Thank you very much for your comments and support. I checked out your page and I like your work.
thank you! :)
"If you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to hide."
I have been told this too many times, even by my parents. what a load of bull. Privacy is developmental like you said and essential. I think EVERYBODY should read this post. Oh and you earned a new follower!
Thanks kindly for your recognition of my essay's concept, as well as your words of support.
Ahhh, I loved the! There seems to be a lot of emphasis on transparency as some kind of ultimate virtue emerging through this generation of people raised with the internet, and transparency is set up as the opposite of privacy. I would much prefer to look at privacy in contrast to secrecy as you explore here. I wrote a response to Dan (developer of steemit and EOS) when he stated we needed radical transparency in order to eliminate bad actors and prove to those who seek to control us that we have nothing to hide. I argued that transparency should come from the top down, becoming more of a requirement with the more power an organization or individual has, and that for us regular folk, it should be encouraged to foster trust, but entirely optional.
I think your article would have helped me to make an even better argument. I hope that you can rewrite it once you’ve grown a bigger following and really get this idea out there more!
Thanks very much. I'm sure Dan is quite adept at negotiation, so there may have been a particular context for his comments - I haven't had the chance to read them directly. I will say that in order for trust to function properly, it needs to be earned mutually, a two way street through the commons of public communication.
Those who create a common space (like a website) for others to use (by choice) have the right to set the rules for transparency, as long as they're up front and consistent about this, and keep those rules within the voluntary space that they have set. However, power in many forms does create multiple pressures around this notion.
Freedom of choice in respect to personal privacy is a line that must be held fast.
The conundrum we have now is that these websites become increasingly difficult to opt out of. As much as I’d like to close my Facebook account, it would takes weeks of research to put together contact information for all the people I’m friends with on there and even if I did, many would ignore my emails because they’re more used to using Facebook to contact. Even if we opt out theyccollect information on all IP addresses. If you have a smartphone it always comes with iOS or Android. So it becomes a much bigger issue than “our platform, we set the rules, deal with them”
Dan worried me a bit with his reasoning because he seemed to imply that we should all be willing to share anything and everything about ourselves in order to prevent those in power to justify a crackdown on crypto and whatever platform we are using. I’m not sure how far he wants to go with this or how flexible he is. He didn’t reply to my comment, there were so many comments haha
Those are very good points - I was thinking about this when I wrote of multiple pressures. A lot of these platforms have pulled a bait and switch in regards to their rules, not being upfront and consistent at all.
How much of an option "voting with your feet" amounts to, depends on two variables (that come to mind): the variety of alternative options available (from websites to browsers, v.p.n.'s, and even different s.p.'s), and how much of the aggregate population can become well informed on these matters. More specifically, how well informed are the people that one needs to communicate with in these ways.
From what I can see the options for migrating contacts is mostly between large platforms. I know that minds.com has a migration option from facebook, at least in general.
I'm also aware of how "voting with your feet" can mean giving up ground upon which you've invested, to say nothing of the many costs of moving (including the strategic implications of giving up ground). The strongest argument to make in respect to this is to confront the arbitrary practice of rules set by the owners of those platforms, and that they need to be held responsible to their word.
Your earlier point about transparency from the top down relative to power corresponds with a lot of this. A Discord group, for example, setting it's own rules, can bring more of a "take it or leave it" approach. But even at that level it's important not to bait and switch people on your rules. And the way that power tends to consolidate into control over others, is always a thing to keep in mind.
Having different transparency relative to power can only be effective when people are well informed going in to a platform, otherwise you end up relying on an even more powerful entity imposing transparency rules on that platform. And that larger entity comes with it's own propensity for corruption and arbitrary rule. Unfortunately most of us have been duped into a lot of these platforms, and it will take a great deal of difficult work to find a workable solution.
Will blockchain technology render the freedom to choose obsolete? Or could it enhance such freedom? I think that freedom and responsibility, for what you choose to bring to others, go hand in hand. They are not opposites.
A quick possible example of strategically effective "voting with your feet": the history of Image Comics.