Privacy is an upper class luxury. You need to have both technical knowledge and a bunch of resources in order to afford it. You can go and shout about privacy all you want and the evils of surveillance capitalism but this won't matter a bit so long wage slavery and capitalism itself is a thing.

Go ahead and be 'private' in your luxury home, with your personal home server and mobile phone that costs more than a months wage in countries that capitalism have wrecked.

Privacy is a right to every human being and a must have, but no working class human can or will ever be able to afford it so long capitalism is a thing.

To have privacy its not enough to abolish Google and Facebook, you need to target your efforts against the whole system.

@alatiera Everybody wants privacy and at the same time wants everybody else to know who they are anto sympathize with their problems. They build shrines to themselves on Facebook and then complain that their privacy is being violated. You can't have it both ways.


True that a lot of privacy tech requires technical knowledge and/or money most people don’t have.

At the same time, there are free steps non-techies can take: Signal, DuckDuckGo, etc.

One problem I see a lot with privacy (as well as security) is people tend to view them as all or nothing. Is it private (yes or no)? Is it secure (yes or no)? The reality is we never get to totally private or secure but we can make dents in the problem.


You make a very valid and important point, that proper privacy isn't easy these days.

But I only partly agree with:
> both technical knowledge and a bunch of resources in order to afford it.

There are many groups and projects out there that make privacy very accessible and affordable.

A shortlist can be found here (thanks @switchingsocial)

I do however *fully* agree with you that the whole system must be challenged.

👣 Step by step... 😇

@alatiera @phoe I was convinced since when I heard my neighbor activities.
@alatiera I don't think I agree. People who don't use/have smart-tech have more privacy than those who do. More than 'upper class' techies.

@tuttle @alatiera That's sadly wrong, because, thanks to ad money, "smart" tech is now heavily subsided, and thus cheap:

Same thing happens on things like Google and Amazon home automation systems, as well as smartphones

@ebassi @alatiera The fact that it's cheap doesn't mean I am spied on less for using it.

@tuttle @alatiera That's a fairly egregious way to misread what I wrote. People will choose cheaper products, and guess what? If a product is cheap mostly likely it means it's been subsidised by ad money. Techies and affluent people can choose to *not* be tracked; not everyone can.

@ebassi @alatiera Alright, I'll agree that there is a segment of the population who are and 2.not short of money, and 3.format their phones. However I do not think they have more privacy than someone who doesn't use smart-tech, and therefore my argument that Privacy is not an upper class luxury. It is instead something that can be partially achieved by not using smart-tech, and that is not a question of class.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!