Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There is not. In fact, many users will gladly give away any notion of privacy whatsoever in exchange for a Candy Crush lootbox.


I have felt great pity for Snowden all these years, his personal sacrifice was all for nothing, a short news cycle later and nobody cared.


People care but lots of people were brainwashed by politicians and the media to think it's no big deal, and even that Snowden is a bad guy. I've met somewhat intelligent people in real life who have zero appreciation for his disclosure, seemingly oblivious to the fact that whistleblowers are unwanted by the establishment. Does anyone seriously think they didn't know that what they were doing was highly illegal and inappropriate?


How many users are aware of their loss of privacy, and of those who are, how many are aware of its extent? These are not trade-offs with clear and obvious implications written on the tin.


Have you tried talking to normies about this? Sure, nobody likes bad things happening to them, but they usually neither understand what would be bad about a loss of privacy, think the long-term consequences are just paranoid fear-mongering, and will shrug away the implications next time they encounter a decision between comfort and privacy again.

It reminds me of Jamie Oliver (I think it was him) showing a group of pupils how Chicken Nuggets are made, in all its brutality; afterwards, when asking them if they would like to eat some nuggets now, guess what they said? "Yeeeeees!"


I want digital privacy… but a lootbox is a lootbox.


As long as the cost/benefit calculation is high enough on your side, you’re fine with it?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: