I clicked on this with a “this really shouldn’t use that word” mindset, and was very pleasantly surprised
I feel like this person is thinking that when we say ‘‘normies’’ we look down on those people.Just because you think thats what ‘‘normies’’ mean doesnt mean its what other people use it for.I think when we say ‘‘normies’’ we mean that these people are more into things like google and things that most people use everyday unlike us who try to break away from such things.Also they talk about being pushy.Not everyone is like this.When I talked to a family member about it I was far from pushy and tried to explain why its bad for your privacy to use this service and how you could use this alternative.They asked me ways to do other stuff that they like to do in a more privacy oriented fashion but they sadly still didn’t care. When they say people do care about privacy it is true but when they look at digital privacy they dont see it the same way as irl privacy like locking the bathroom door and such.Just because they care about irl privacy doesnt mean that they will feel the same about digital privacy.
deleted by creator
well, it’s not just privacy. choose any topic, any thing that matters to you, and there will be a significant number of people that just don’t care. any topic, privacy, climate change, this very pandemic, factory farming, capitalism, literally anything. I disagree with the writer of the article, I think there are indeed people who don’t care about privacy at all.
now how to change that? anyone has any ideas? I personally think it’s almost impossible to do it in any meaningful way. you can try and explain how online tracking works, how much their data is being collected, talk to them about Snowden’s revealations, all that. after you’ve finished, they have already made their mind. they will either become more careful, or reject the whole idea. it is after this point that I think you just can’t change their mind anymore. so I guess having a good explanation of why privacy is important, and a good description of the current problems is what matters the most. it’s like you’ve got a single shot and it’s hit or miss.
but again it applies to everything. try to educate someone who denies climate change, they have already made their mind and I honestly don’t know how anyone can change someone’s mind at that point.
I’m still leaning towards the idea that a ‘one size fits all approach’, probably isn’t going to work.
At one point i started discussing the idea that for those who won’t value privacy for its own merits, may at least appreciate the $ value they’re giving away, literally every day.
It wasn’t long after that, we started seeing articles suggesting this was a bad approach because people should value it for a higher reason than monetary value.
And I mean sure, according to us they probably should, but will they? ever? I’m still leaning towards employing multiple approaches depending on what each individual person values.
Thank you for sharing @ajz@lemmy.ml. I found the article very interesting. Sometimes people need or want to use privacy invasive services, I think that it’s perfectly fine and reasonable. Nonetheless, on privacy community those people are mocked by “privacy enthusiasts”. This is a very bad approach, i’m glad the article pointed out the problem.
This is provocative clickbait-y title done right.
It’s true that the compromises presented by alternative privacy-friendly software are TOO big for some people, and it should be understood that everyone’s threat model in the privacy context varies wildly. This perpetual bashing of unalike-minded people can actually be spotted in r/privacy and it can be sickening to lurk there [insert c/privacy praise here :) ].
This article agrees with every other article helping people who are so deep in an issue that they don’t give room for someone who knows less or who has different values.
Bottom line: How do I convince person X to take action Y? Step one, build a relationship not based on them agreeing with you. Step two, talk about things of mutual interest which may or may not let you convince them of anything. Third step (advanced users only), you learn something.
I have been changing in different situations and tend to plan things better. However, a few times I recognize to get pissed and act in a stupid and unfriendly way with ironic jokes in the middle. :^)
Maybe the author got into the same situation while writing the article, because it starts like pissed and finish being friendly.
It definitively opened my mind 👍🏼
Great essay, does a really great job of pointing out how condescending a lot of privacy advocates can be, and how using the socratic method is a much better way to get people to think about privacy.
I also want to add this related and wonderful essay that critiques how richard stallman does this, and also sees privacy and free software problems as individual problems requiring individualistic solutions, rather than collective ones requiring a unified approach.
Great essay, I think it deserves its own post.
Hope you don’t mind if I post it. I’m sure it’ll generate some great comments from fellow Lemmynauts, and I’d love to read them, especially after reading the comments on the article.
Then now we need to stop helping people. Okay.
Pushing your own opinions on other people is not helpful, whether its about privacy or any other topic. Instead you should try to understand their situation (without judging), offer advice/help when they ask for it, and lead by example.
Oookay. Thanks for the advice. :')
Removed by mod
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.
