Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dumblydorr | Hacker News Reader

Not destroying our planet with GHG and rendering it inhospitable for millions of species, including humanity, is more important than a couple generations' data being spied on.

View on HN

It's not an either-or situation. Both are important for humanity to survive and thrive.

I know that Benjamin Franklin said this in a completely different context and for another purpose, [1] but it makes sense to me to repeat his saying:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

However, the article's topic verbatim states privavy is "the most important", which makes it an either-or statement by the very nature of a superlative.

The person you replied to did in no way say privacy is not also important, but rightfully pointed out that the survival of life on the planet is more important than privacy.

If anything this says two things:

- superlatives are overused

- just because superlatives are overused doesn't mean we should ignore their semantics

Climate change and the environment at large are orders of magnitude more important than 'privacy', on this planet, at this time.

This quote is not apt here because that's not what's at stake, and it misses the point completely, which is that claiming that privacy is the "most important concept of our time", apart from being a strange wording, is quite out of touch with the reality of the world's current problems.

Fwiw - these two things are not as disentangled as one might think. Consider disinformation leading to the widespread climate change deniers.

Both are existential threats with high degrees of uncertainty.

How is disinformation entangled with privacy?

Targeted disinformation.

“The Great Hack” documentary captures how Cambridge Analytica takes the 10s of thousands of data points per person to identify opportunities to divide people and the design a misinformation campaign that will resonate with each faction.

Off the top of my head:

- It could be in the interest of a government to make sure people aren't spreading what they would consider disinformation

- It is then in the government's interest to prevent the spread of disinformation, perhaps to identify those spreading it or those who may be inclined to spread it

- It's not a stretch then to consider that it could be in the interest of government, particularly one with malicious or authoritarian intent, to tap into private conversations of people suspected of spreading disinformation.

I find it particularly concerning, because I assume that what people within a society would consider disinformation is 1) inconsistent, 2) ephemeral.

That's interesting, your peer commenters have observed almost the opposite thing.

You note that government may want to target individuals to prevent the spread of misinformation more effectively.

The others note that misinformation spreaders may want to target inviduals to spread misinformation more effectively.

Sounds like individual-targeting is a weapon for both sides.

Targeted disinformation.

Imagine being able to compile the cheapest pressure point for everyone in the world using surveillance and then exploiting it on a industrial scale. Most modern surveillance is in a legally ambiguous area of the law.

In theory you can target anyone with habitual use of a computer or with friends who use computers a lot for very cheap.

Targeted disinformation from ads was much less effective than widespread disinformation from paid shills.

Yes but most influencers gain an audience through social networking.

Which also isn't targeted disinformation.

To add to the siblings' comments, it is also likely that a lack of privacy leads to groupthink. Groupthink may propagate misinformation, as people become afraid to speak up against it.

I would even adventure to say that privacy is a human construct that doesn't really matter... why is privacy that important? when did "privacy" start to be of importance to the human been.

As a devil's advocate, if EVERYTHING, absolutely everything was public, and "common knowledge" and accepted (you sleep without clothes, oh god! scandal!) a lot of things would be easier.

Of course the fact that people are judged for their choices is what makes us value privacy... but the right thing would be for them NOT to be judged by those choices.

I understand at the basic level it is an unpopular opinion, but I submit this as a thought process on the same level that Asimov, Heinlein and other SciFi authors proposed to test our basic social assumptions.

Your comment is whataboutism and a false dichotomy. Both issues can be addressed simultaneously and independently. I mean it's laudable that you feel stronger about conservatism than privacy, but right now you seem under the impression that we can only pick one.

The context is the title.

My point is that the reply was a direct comment on the title, which explicitly says "the most important". The poster is not saying that they are mutually exclusive so calling "whataboutism" on that is a strawman.

There is limited bandwidth of humanity here, there can only be one most important concept. The title argues it is privacy, which is questionable given the much longer term impacts of GHG and destruction of our biosphere.

Other comments have noted that companies spying upon us will lead to less climate action, which I do agree with given a dirth of privacy on a site like FB enables GOP misinformation paid for by fossil fuel interests.

The model of global warming you believe in is hyperbolic and ascientific. No legitimate climate scientist is worried about "rendering the earth inhospitable".

They may not be mutually exclusive. It's hard to press the off switch when you're strapped in and you're rapidly accelerating.

When they control your every move through an invasion of privacy how can they stop burning the oil that fuels you lest they lose their position of power?

Climate change is a slow process. Technology is fast enough to catch up with it and solve it, since it's mostly a technological problem.

Privacy is a social problem. Automation is too(And my guess in the near future, it would be a much bigger problem).

Social problems get resolved very slowly, if at all. So those 2 seem more worrysome.

Anyone who believes the above simply hasn't looked at the numbers. The speed at which we need to reduce emissions simply dwarfs anything technology has ever achieved - not to mention the fact that so far, technological progress has always had the net effect of adding to GHG emissions.

Let's take the example of the digital industry. Arguably, it's shown the most impressive trajectory of energy efficiency, with an exponential growth sustained over many decades, roughly gaining 3 orders of magnitude every 16 years (See Koomey's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koomey%27s_law#:~:text=Koomey'....).

But overall, what's the currently worst-offending industry in terms of GHG emissions / energy consumption growth? The digital industry! Our unmoderated consumption grows even faster than energy efficiency gains, to the point that it's the only major industry in which the energy intensity of added value is increasing.

(Many sources here: https://theshiftproject.org/en/lean-ict-2/)

We do need a lot of technological investments, but the narrative that says this will be sufficient is a very dangerous mirage. Please, be responsible, do your research, and don't spread ignorance - our children will have to bear the burden.

Climate change is as much a social problem as any. While I do think the constant focus on individual responsibility and small changes within domestic households is largely a misdirect to divert attention from real systemic & political/corporate causes of climate change, those large political/corporate entities are still ultimately sustained by societal behaviour; we would literally need to change everything (at the very least in the western world) to avert climate change, which is very much a social challenge.

> Climate change is a slow process

This may have been true in the 50s or 60s. It sounds like that's the last time you took an interest in this topic.

> Technology is fast enough to catch up with it and solve it

Is this satire?

> Automation is too(And my guess in the near future, it would be a much bigger problem)

People have been saying this since ancient Rome or before (see Vespasian), but it hasn't happened nor will it ever. This (unlike privacy) is a phantom problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com