It’s important mainly to give people a way to interact with the digital space from highly controlled regions, like occupied Ukraine or Hong Kong or something. Joe Bob who is afraid of google tracking him deserves his privacy too, but it’s not as important.
Do you think perhaps that valuing privacy differently from one individual to the next would have a net negative effect? If we’re now also talking about threat assessments, that’s another topic altogether, with privacy only being a part.
Yes, perhaps. It’s irrelevant though. Trying to get everyone to agree to a universal set of values on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is already hard enough. Privacy is even harder.
People have different opinions and value different things, they choose that all for themselves. They’re free to do that, and it’s fine.
My point is that I’m not sure it’s a good idea to use those in bad situations as the gauge as to what about privacy is important. Doing it in this way, in my opinion, risks losing sight of the core reasons why privacy should be important for everyone. And everyone, regardless of their situation can choose, if they wish, to have as little privacy as they want. However, those who choose to retain their privacy should have the freedom to do so. It shouldn’t be dictated by the masses. Do we just become nihilists when things require a bit of complex thought or aren’t black and white?
The key part of this that is also opinion, is the “why privacy should be important for everyone”.
That will be answered by the democratic process, not any single person’s judgement. Privacy does not have any inherent importance from god or nature, we give it importance. We decide.
That clarification aside, I do agree with you. I also believe in privacy on principle. However, my belief is my opinion. What is fact is that it saves lives in more dangerous regions. This is more important than any opinion I could possibly have, regardless of how strongly I feel. My opinion on the importance of privacy is mainly based on my concerns for the future, which I cannot be certain of, not the facts of the present day, which I can be certain of.
Totally agree that it helps in dangerous regions (depending of course on the source of the dangers). I shouldn’t be deciding on what level of privacy you should be entitled to. Democracy, or any decision making, whatever you want to call them that involves making decisions that affect many people will be a constant battle. Ideally we should be giving people as many protections as feasible, while at the same time allowing them to have autonomy to choose what’s appropriate for them. And you’re right, thinking about the future is something we (as the human race) don’t tend to do enough of, leading to many short-sighted decision-making because votes. Nice chat, see ya round.
If you wish to know more about the benefits through therapeutic approaches, I highly recommend Prof. James Fadiman’s book titled ‘The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide’. It is a rather large resource based on Fadiman’s involvement in LSD trials before research was halted abruptly and without warning, and is as close to a scientific approach to developing better pathways to preferred thought processes (through the use of psychedelics mainly LSD) that I am aware of.
Other resources include a therapeutic handbook, provided to health professionals such as psychiatrists prior to the illegalisation of LSD. This can be found on Erowid, alongside other documents that have survived.
I want to be secure from bad actors myself. Currently there is no technology that would safely let government break encryption without letting bad actors use the same backdoor to empty your bank account. Sure they would not be given the key but there is a huge incentive for them to try to find it.
Also how would you make sure a bad actor don’t make their own app with unbroken encryption and running a system without client side scanning? Again there is huge incentive to do this and the information how is publicly available.
So in the end bad actors get their private conversation while law abiding citizens don’t.
My family hurt my feelings, so I went from class clown to silent observer. I intended to only modify my behavior around them, but it started to spill into other areas of my life. Now I’m a very quiet person.
Generally speaking, anything described as a “spiritual practice” will tend to alter people’s personality to the degree they put effort into it.
It’s not normal for personality to change much. People’s personality changes under relatively rare conditions: trauma, enlightenment, extreme conditioning.
Another commenter mentioned psychedelic drugs and those are definitely catalysts for personality change.
The things that have changed my personality the most are:
abuse
violence while homeless
ayahuasca ceremonies
getting the 10-series from a rolfer
By “personality” here I’m talking about emotional patterns, which become the foundation for all sorts of beliefs, tastes, tendencies, social roles.
By emotional patterns I mean the overall averages of joy, sadness, fear, openness, guilt, etc, both over time and also in their typical daily cycles.
have almost always been used by bad actors that ruin it for everyone else.
…So what? You’re suggesting that, because some people misuse a right in an illegal way, that the right should be taken from everyone. It’s the equivalent of saying that because some people use speech to incite violence, the right to free speech should be taken. I completely reject that view.
You’re suggesting that, because some people misuse a right in an illegal way, that the right should be taken from everyone.
I’m not. I’m asking how we can navigate this conundrum in order to reach a common ground where we do NOT have to give up our precious privacy in exchange for security.
I’m sorry if my post didn’t reflect this. I’ll update it.
I’m not. I’m asking how we can navigate this conundrum in order to reach a common ground where we do NOT have to give up our precious privacy in exchange for security.
That’s easy. You tell the people who want you to give up your right to privacy to go fuck themselves. The common ground is when they go fuck themselves, problem solved.
It’s equally unrealistic to give up all of your privacy in the name of security. Not everything can be a compromise, the opponent will fight with everything they have to take your right to privacy, if you want any privacy at all you need to fight every attempt.
When you give up your privacy in the name of security you end up with neither.
I don’t believe in excessive monitoring, but I also think it’s weird we think of the lack of observation as a fundamental right. Too much privacy, I think universally, is any time we go out of our way to guarantee/fight for it.
The lack of observation has a clear effect on thoughts and behavior. There is even an English saying “when the cat is away, the mice will play”. I think that there is no such thing as " freedom of speech" or “freedom of assembly”, if a malicious actor is silent notes taking at all times.
And because harvested data goes to the rich, or the cops who care about convictions more than the truth it is a reasonable assumption in my threat model that data observation is malicious observation.
Also from a citizen development perspecrive, if your citizens are always watched, then they never develop the " moral muscle" and the only morality remains in the hands of those with the power to observe and enforce their will.
Smile. Seems cheesy, I know, but it’s actually real good. The plot is that someone is trying to stop a curse that cause people to kill themselves, but the thing is, it’s like a virus, so when someone sees the infected person kill themselves, they become infected and do the same.
These mfers have been trying to end encryption and privacy for quite a while now. And when they fail to pass some law or wtv they just try again and again after some time. This been happening here in the EU, also UK. Its happening everywhere. They just have 1 thing in mind: more control over population thats it. Its not about the children, if it was about the children they would have invaded the Vatican already and/or incriminated a lot of these mfers connected to Eipstein, but they don’t because they themselves are in on it through connections of interests etc. They’re all the real criminals, it’s a big mafia club we have running this world. Everything is upside down.
No, but you can link to an external video. Unfortunately videos are very taxing on servers (and therefore expensive to deal with), so it’s unlikely we’ll see them in Lemmy in the near future.
It’s up to the client on how to render them. Most videos I encounter in Lemmy are linked from outside sources or are on YouTube.
Lemmy-UI has no or limited support for anything but images.
Tesseract is on the other end of the spectrum and supports pretty much every kind of media.
Photon supports GIFs and native (mp4, webm) videos.
Other UIs and mobile apps, I haven’t kept as up-to-date on but are typically somewhere between Lemmy-UI and Photon’s level of media support.
Edit: In addition to what clients support, it’s also up to each instance admin to define what media they allow to be uploaded. Among the possible configuration options are:
Whether to allow any media uploads at all
The max size of the media they’ll allow users to upload
Whether to allow videos or just static images
Whether to convert videos to GIFs or static images
Whether the media subsystem (pict-rs) can process the upload before the upload request times out. I think that’s 10 seconds which limits direct uploads to short videos.
Like others have said, hosting videos is expensive both in areas of storage and bandwidth. Most Lemmy instances are run by volunteers at their cost or operate solely on donations. Admins typically ask users to host those off-server (Imgur, YouTube, Catbox, etc) and restrict what can be uploaded directly to reasonable limits.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.