Firefox can’t load HTML pages? Huh?
Do you remember when it was commonly advised to use fake names and birthdays on online forms, and when “spyware” was a term?
Ultimately, arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
Edward Snowden
deleted by creator
Hey you have nothing to hide? Please give me: Your address, bank account info, card numbers, social security, and the information of your family and friends. All passwords. Hand over your wallet too. Give me photos of your fingerprints, genitals, and a 360 view of your head. Why does it matter what I could do with such info? You have nothing to hide, right?
There’s worse.
They already know everything about me anyways. If I can exchange my data for some free and easy to use service, I’m more than happy to give.
I hate defeatism.
Its not even defeatism, its willingly sacrificing themselves to the machine in hopes it will be merciful!
True.
And they’ll follow that up with a somewhat snarky comment that “You’ll be eliminated by the machines first.”
I don’t, in general make this same bargain, and I’m not more than happy to give my data, and thus sacrifice my privacy. However, I have had to reckon, and I think many of those who value privacy must too, with the fact that it isn’t inherently valued by everyone, that simply adequately communicating this in a way that’s better understood won’t translate to people suddenly realising what they’re giving up. We aren’t always simply one great analogy away from changing every person’s world view and likely many have come to their view from a place at least as well informed as those of us who jealously guard our privacy. I also have to reckon with the fact that to some extent, my own desire to protect my privacy is at least not fully explainable by logic and rationalism, especially in light of how difficult it is to protect and how easy it is to have unwittingly ceded it. You might call that defeatism, and to simply conclude “well I lost some privacy, so I might as well give it up completely” is accepting defeat, again not something I’m yet prepared to do, but it is also perhaps important to acknowledge and factor present realities in to one’s thinking. It might sound defeatist to point out an enemy’s big guns pointed toward you from all sides, but it’s insane to ignore them. That quote that you’ve produced, while antithetical to my thinking, really isn’t irrational or illogical, and only defeatist if you were onboard with fighting to begin with. If you do not value your privacy and you get something useful in exchange for its sacrifice then it would seem obvious to part with it gladly and it’s difficult to offer a rational reason why someone shouldn’t. My strongest motivation for protecting it is more idealistic than personal and has more to do with a kind of slippery slope argument and a concern for hypothetical power grabbing and eroding of our rights and autonomy. I like to think that’s reason enough, but at least right now, for almost everyone, none of those concerns represent clear nor present dangers and I can’t prove it definitely will become such in future though I certainly feel like it has accelerated trends firmly in the direction of my fears.
On the last point you talked about, “prove it definitely will become such a future”. You simply cannot prove that without going there. What we’re seeing is not a natural course of actions, so we cannot simply derive the consequences like we would be able in science. Even in science, often times, the best we can do is probabilistic. The best we can do is show that such a future is possible, and that given the evidences, we may be able to conclude that the chances of realizing such a future is so and so, with caveats to known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
I’ll admit that chalking it up to defeatism is a stretch, but it’s not too far in my opinion. It’s the admission that the “machines” (though it’s really just big tech companies with a vested interest in as much data as possible so that they can sell it one way or another for profit) have already won and there’s not only no point in struggling against it, you get something out of it. I don’t necessarily agree with the gun analogy as I find it difficult to distinguish that from a threat of your life, but I see where you’re coming from: the easy path towards what most people current perceive as a modern life of tech is built in a way that pushes people into line as products, by enticing them with a “service” and taking advantage of their FOMO, and all other ways are either too much work or too technical for the common person.
When these services that people have come to rely on gets enshittified, these people would then just shrug and say “well what can you do,” maybe send some angry message somewhere into the aether and continue with the service, continuing to be a milk cow.
For myself, I see privacy as a tool towards encouraging a healthier variety in the ecosystem. It is a way to attain at least some healthy level of anonymity, as you would walking down streets in different parts of the world, so that I do not have to constantly maintain a single, outward personality everywhere I go. Supporting privacy is my way of saying I don’t like how many big tech business works, by essentially exploiting human nature and stepping all over it. That IS ideological; I simply believe that we can do good business without resorting to dirty tactics and opportunism; that humans should not be milk cows to business or capitalism.
That said, I have some vested interest in having more options: my interest and hobbies are niche and none of these services can or will sufficiently provide for what I seek. By the milk cow analogy, I do not sufficiently benefit from the blanket offers of these businesses. I also do not like the consequences of which they bring to humans and their relationships, and not fixing those consequences is out of a conflict of interest where they are motivated to exploit human nature and relationships to profiteer off us all, as is the many examples that we’re all starting to see and realize from capitalism.
but it was trash at loading html websites
as opposed to websites written in excel 2003 format or what
Bro’s from the timeline where Flash became the dominant species.
It was full of ActiveX controls and Silverlight.
shudders
there are many more type of websites, other than html
Can you give an example?
PHP: Facebook, Dream Market, Silk Road(darkweb)
Ruby on Rails: Github, Airbnb
Django: Bitbucket
These technologies can compile into websites in themselves, but they are usually used as backend
Except that all of those produce HTML. They are all HTML websites.
PHP stands for “PHP Hypertext Preprocessor” because it is a Preprocessor of HTML (HyperText Markup Language).
If we are talking about browser performance, none of those technologies that you mentioned execute on the browser at all and are therefore irrelevant to Firefox’s performance compared to another browser.
From a browser’s perspective, every website is HTML, CSS and JavaScript.
none of those technologies that you mentioned execute on the browser at all
sounds like you haven’t met webassembly yet :D
- https://github.com/seanmorris/php-wasm
- https://github.com/ruby/ruby.wasm
- https://github.com/m-butterfield/django_webassembly
please don’t take this as a recommendation to use that, but it does exist.
Tell me in your own words what you think hypertext is.
The claim to have “nothing to hide” was not just born our of ignorance, but also out of comfort - to not having to do anything about it.
Now that even the last one accepted that they do indeed have something to hide, but in order to justify their own inaction, it’s labeled as inevitable: privacy is not real.
They are lying to themselves, because doing otherwise would mean they have to admit being wrong.
The ‘nothing to hide’ argument seems a lot like that ‘first they came for socialists and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist…’ quote. Sure you have nothing to hide right now, but what happens when something you weren’t hiding becomes a target.
It’s true that they say both things out of comfort.
Though to be completely honest, both statements are not contradictory. They are not necessarily accepting that they do have something worth hiding, but just stating that hiding is too difficult these days anyway. That does not mean (sadly) that they would start doing it were it easier, just that they have even less of a motive to care about it now that hiding is so much harder (to the point of almost being “a myth”).
I’m not saying they are right, I’m saying that lack of consistency is not the problem with that attitude. It’s not a “shift”, just a consistent continuation of a lazy attitude towards comfort.
i think its a propganda to destroy privacy like the one “police are public protector” only the high ups and they know what police means but the general public dont .
The mindset about privacy is just all wrong. It’s not an all or nothing game. Any privacy gain is a net positive to no privacy at all.
To many people conflate privacy with anonymity or try “accomplish” privacy without understanding what they want to be private from and why.
Many people don’t even distinguish
- Privacy
- Anonymity
- Security
So you know… For example Signal is private but not anonymous as it is tied to you in some way (username, phone number). Security is just not exposing yourself when you haven’t allowed someone to have this information / access.
Exactly. Now to click the “copy text” button and keep your fine words handy for my next convo with a friend who thinks life with Facebook and Google is grand.
“My prehistoric brain can only think in ‘binary’ and doesn’t understand that development of a successful threat model doesn’t (and often can’t) be perfect, but any incremental change to my behavior and online practices in a way to prevent sensitive information from being shared and potentially utilized by malicious actors is a plus.
Instead of thinking about all of that, I’m going to reduce the whole subject to a nice and neat logical fallacy of ‘online privacy is terrible nowadays, thus it doesn’t matter what I do’ “
“Normies”? We don’t need more tribalism.
html websites
These aren’t normies. They’re children.
This honestly reads like a bad commercial you’d hear on the radio.
A lot of people have just accepted surviellance for convienience.
People close to me get TSA precheck even though it requires fingerprinting, because “the government already has your fingerprints”
But if they did, why would they need to ask your for them?
Depending on what people do, the government already has their fingerprints.
Personally, I work around schools so I had to get a background check and fingerprinted for that. I also am licensed to handle explosives, both federally and at the state level. I been fingerprinted for that. I’ve gone through TSA for hazmat endorsement on a commercial driver’s license. That needed fingerprints and a background check.
Getting fingerprinted to get through airport security is the least of my privacy concerns.
But my threat model isn’t the TSA. They aren’t a concern of mine, although I do opt out of their facial recognition.
I am concerned with internet surveillance, corporate surveillance, and communication surveillance.
When I got fingerprinted for my classified security clearance I told them that due to my psoriasis my fingerprints were blank due to the thickened skin. They said it didn’t matter so I have a set of blank prints in the fed files.
Sorry for devil’s advocate here because I agree with you but hypothetically the answer would be verification. ie., Google already has your password, so why would they need to ask you for it when you log in?
Clear Blue is like this, but they use your iris scan. You have to scan every time to skip the line. But the TSA precheck just fingerprints you once when you sign up IIRC
Technically they only have your password hash
TSA sounds nightmarish to me
If you’ve gone to jail they totally have your prints already. Fingerprints are identifying information for such a thing. How else would they do that?
Not everyone has gone to jail, but if the govt has your fingerprints it’s easier to get convicted regardless of your innocence.
When they realized they DO actually have something to hide, they moved the goalposts to now say nothing is private online anyway.
I mean, that is pretty close to the truth. Especially for people whose skill level is at “Firefox sucks at loading HTML sites”.
That’s such a weird statement. People who don’t like Firefox at that level don’t know what html is.
my guess is its just another flavour of cope.
imo likely because recent history has began to undermine the delusions which were propping up the former flavour.
i had the same thought since i sometimes wonder “why bother” when i know that things like prism gave them everything they wanted 15 years ago.
Haha holy shit id forgotten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
i’m reminded of it each time i see the duct tape covering the camera of my work laptop. lol
