The future is zero privacy/anonymity.
(media.communities.win)
Comments (29)
sorted by:
That second tweet sparked a pretty lively conversation.
For the non-twits: https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1517215736606957573
Of course there's a, " What are you hiding?" Those are the assholes that started this mess.
I just now made a meme about that exact mindset based on a pretty profound comment someone on here made yesterday.
Nice.
Bezos bought Washington Post
Elon's buying Twitter
Every billionaire has to have their own media outlets. And space agencies.
Obviously. The 'consrrvatives' are all in favour of a mass oligarch saving them.........the hypocrisy is endless.
Absolutely farcical. Musk is a bad person.....so are everyone one who has media clout and persona....
There are no saviors....only tyrants.
Musk is and always was a DS dock puppet with an agenda.
Stop giving him air space.
Agree on most, except it's been Jason that's been running the tech show for more than 20 years, not DARPA. DARPA is old skool dinosaurs, playing with old toys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)
Funding is now off the books
what's twitter?
Unpopular opinion but future being non-privacy is a good thing. But only if it starts at the top with politicians/media. Think of how many power hungry cops were exposed from cameras. It is overall a net positive (yes, there is not enough punishment for the epstein "glitches" and cops turning it off). Also, that being said, if it starts at the bottom like China, then it sucks.
Police should be filmed but that doesn't mean civilians shouldn't have privacy. Privacy is an inalienable right.
Inside your home sure. In a town square, most of us already gave away privacy to our smartphones, neighbors Ring videos, etc. Unless you're out in farmland.
De-anon twitter will not completely lose your privacy on the internet. Just the potential for most of it (assuming twit gets more popular and sites choose to go with integrated logins and tracking). And trumps or other alternative never take off.
My point is in some year 3000, i can see right to life being considered a more inalienable right than privacy in a (in your view, distopian) town implementing cameras everywhere resulting in a much lower crime rate and a 0-unresolved-crime rate.
"Most of us already did X" is a nonargument. Twitter will turn into a bigger shit sandwich than it already is. Not believing in privacy is antithetical to liberty because public anonymity is essential to spreading truth without fear of retribution.
Of course for now, places like wikileaks still need to exist. I'm just not bought in to the idea that people really find truths on twitter or how lack of privacy on twitter could make that shit sandwich worse. I imagine it primarily removes the bots and glowies. Or at least makes it a little harder for em.
And because it doesn't make sense to you, other people shouldn't have anonymity? Come on bro. If Twitter wasn't such a threat, the establishment wouldn't be hellbent on censorship.
I dont see censorship increasing nor decreasing based on anonymity. If anything, I'd imagine censorship is easier if the mod is anonymous and if they can group-ban real users with anon bots. That said, I'm not really against anonymity. If this website required ID, i probably wouldnt use it. Just if owners of a private company want members not to be anonymous, I'm also not against that. I could be swayed but so far, i dont see it.
You don't have to see it, that's not an actual argument. We both know that people are targeted by corrupt governments and other entities when they are seen as a threat. I don't know why you're pretending that anonymity doesn't protect people from harm. I'm trying to have a good faith conservation here. History is full of examples of how anonymity is essential to defending liberty. If Twitter eliminates anonymity many people will stop using it. And it extends the trend of anti privacy policies that big tech has been pushing.
You might mix privacy with authority responsibility and transparency. Cop, even bad one have two states - ordinary citizen and cop. Cop when he is cop is not a regular person - he is doing specific job that was given to him by people who hired him and paying him salary for doing that job. So when cop is a cop, his employer AKA people, have full and unlimited right to control and monitor his every single move. Especially taking in account specific rights people grant to cops.
What you might want is something like that - when he is cop, his every single step has to be documented videoed, recorded and should be publicly available. People pay his salary and have full right to check how he do his job. When he is a citizen he have full rights for the privacy as anybody else and no any cop privileges and rights. If his actions as a cop is (was) not documented for whatever reason (mY cAmErA wAs bRoKeN!!!), he is (was) not a cop at that moment and have no any privileges or cop rights at all. So, cop doing something wrong he want to hide, had to turn off his recording device, and at that moment he became just a criminal and victim could do anything for defence without any consequences.
Society have a full right to control and monitor any state or government official without any limitations. Since that is society hired them and pay them salary.
All above, of course is for some better society, not for current one.
No but im open to ideas. Apart from kiddie porn, i havent heard much about ISP giving up privacy. Seems that most gave up on the copyright torrenting stuff but i havent read or thought much on it. Ideally ISP would be transparent and open to lawsuits about their enforcement. And/or people would just pick ISP that respect privacy. And yea, the areas where you only have a single ISP could be screwed but they are probably used to the shit service already. I've always been biased toward just relocating.