Folks, let me share some random observations with you, because I can’t wrap my mind around those.
-
People have Zoom, Teams, Slack, Discord, Messenger, Telegram, and Viber, all happily installed on their phones at the same time. When you then invite them to Matrix they are like “Is this necessary? Why install yet another one of those?”
-
People who use Chrome by default without ad blockers, and you just hint there is a massive intelligence and surveillance operation are quick to respond that “I am getting this services for free, so it is fine to give something back” [1].
-
People thinking that OSS is not secure enough for their devices. Surprise surprise, it is the exact same people who fall for obvious scams and their devices are ad-ridden, bloated horrors that have not been updated in a million years, but they think that Libre Office will break their computer and lose their emails.
-
People thinking that privacy and anonymity enthusiasts are shady freaks who want to go live in the woods and possibly terrorists. There is a slightly insane take here that we are against technology because we refuse to “just” install an app to make our lives easier[2].
So they do not complain about being exploited and disrespected, while ripped off and offered crap services, as long it is a capitalist corporation shaking them down with vendor lock-in and network effects. They are grateful even. But just the idea of installing a single free/libre OSS app or extension to protect their privacy is a red flag and pushes their buttons big time, even for just suggesting it.
So, what are your own examples of anti-OSS stupidity, and how do you explain its prevalence in society?
Oh, I got one of my own: The notion that Linux is for enthusiasts that spend most of the time tweaking their computer, and therefore Linux can’t be used by an end user who just want to get things done.
Close to this is the classic adage: “Linux is only free if you don’t value your time” which is an extension that assumes that extensive tweaking is necessary to get to work, not an option available to the power user.
(But they still complain when Microsoft fucks over their workflow on every update. It is a double standard because Microsoft is “a brand”, so yes, I will say it is a Linux-specific bias.)
So many people I’ve talked to about privacy are 100% believers in “if I have nothing to hide I don’t need to care about my privacy” and they think the only people that use things like tor are drug dealers trying to access the dark web.
Explain to them that Meta employees can and will look at their sexting and nude photos.
If this doesn’t alert them, they are a lost cause.
I still don’t care. There’s a difference if they’re going to use this info to exploit me, but if they aren’t doing that, i couldn’t give less of a fuck what they think about my sexting
In this case, your wavering of your own privacy is normalizing surveillance for all of us, therefore your self-indignation is essentially a selfish behavior. Privacy is a fucking right after all. If you don’t want to make use of it, you should not dictate whether others have the very chance to use it.
🤨. You’re calling me selfish because i don’t care about something? Your privacy is your business man. My decisions shouldn’t have to dictate how that’s handled
Your argument was essentially: I don’t care if people read my sexting, I still have nothing to hide. By analogy, if you wouldn’t care being watched in the toilet, that would be your own funeral, but the rest of us might still want our walls and full height doors.
Plus, bad encryption can bring you to the position of being compromised and exploited. You are just not the target of anyone, but there are people who are targeted. A Saudi female journalist was attacked on the basis of sex photos for example.
This should show that the “I don’t have nothing to hide” position is a concession to “I am not a concern for any oppressor or hate group across the globe”. If you are proud of this corollary or not is up to who you are/want to be. But you put those people in danger by your utter indifference for other people’s struggles. So, yes, in one word selfish, no personal offense intended.
Not necessarily. Your example about the journalist just clarifies why we have the concept of “threat models”. She had a threat model that required some level of privacy. I just don’t have that as with most people
Sure, but since many types of marginalized communities have a default threat model, not having a threat model is a privilege.
Further, the scale of surveillance and invasion is a threat to actual democracy (not only due to massive surveillance, but also parallel surveillance and political advertising). So this can build up to a “They first came for the socialists” situation.
To be fair, living in the woods doesn’t sound too bad.
There is a grain of truth in this stereotype, innit?
Libre Office will break their computer and lose their emails.
Few buttons in a different place and they no longer instantly know how to use it == broken.
People stagnate and tech savvy people don’t realise how tech savvy they are.
The difference I’ve noticed is that average people memorize how to accomplish their tasks with software and savvy people look for something that will accomplish their task.
You’ve explained the mentality - people don’t particularly care to know.
Why would people put in the effort to solve a problem they’re barely aware of, and don’t understand - particularly if putting the effort in to understand and address won’t even solve that problem? If you want to add problems to people’s lives, you need to tone it all the way down.
Don’t get me wrong though - you’re fighting the good fight - and meeting people where they’re at helps, so I guess this is a decent place to start.
I couldn’t say why some are so fully propagandized into servile corporate bootlickery. But enough about r/neoliberal[1][2].
- People install communication apps because someone they want to communicate asks/tells them to. I don’t want to use Slack, but people who pay my bills use Slack, so I use Slack. I use Matrix too because I believe in it philosophically, but the UX is a little rough and very few conversations I want to have are actually taking place there.
- I don’t really understand this one. Adblockers are relatively easy to install and the modern web sucks without them.
- I haven’t encountered much of this in a long time, but familiar feels safe to people. Something they haven’t heard of might feel sketchy.
- This sounds like someone trying to persuade you to install an app because you using it would be convenient for them.
That open source makes it any less susceptible to privacy and security concerns.
How so? What do you recommend then?
Xz utils comes to mind. I recommend avoiding bias just because it’s oss
OK if you insist, let’s point out that just because people can look at the code and find vulnerabilities, this does not mean they automatically do. Just because it is open source it does not mean automatically it is secure nor private. I hope everybody reading this understands that. On the other hand, there are analyses on why the XZ thing happened, for example this one looking at bullying in the community and pressure for fixes. Without following the communities regularly and researching there is no point in being a passive consumer of open source products. Having said that, with proprietary software the opportunity to audit the code is not even there to start with, eg you have to take a provider’s like Microsoft’s or Telegram’s word for their encryption. Let’s not forget to address the misconception that viruses can’t be written for Linux. They can. Also persistent actors are willing and able to compromise open source and even air-gapped systems.
