Really? That's the solution? Have the organization that is trying to invade your privacy take over more of the communication methods?
Also the government isn't one organization. It is as wide and varied as the corporate landscape. She may trust NPR which is nominally "the state" (barely) but not NSA or FBI, which is a very reasonable stance to take. The most stringent defenders of privacy I've ever heard of as a class are librarians, who are -- you guessed it -- part of the government. Even agencies themselves are not monoliths; there are many people even at NSA who work in a defensive capacity securing and protecting systems instead of subverting them.
So "More government! That's ludicrous" isn't really nuanced enough.
That's backwards. Individuals have more control when working with non-government entities because they can opt-out completely. If I don't want Facebook to invade my privacy, I don't have to use it. Problem solved. There's no opting out of the government and NSA invading my privacy.
I'm not saying it's a great solution, but it's a solution, and it's more options than exist for opting out of government surveillance.
From other people posting your pictures and whereabouts? You have to quit civilization.
Doesn't change the fact that it's easier and legal to opt out of Facebook.
That isn't a real solution, just like "opt out of google" or "opt out of facebook" isn't a real solution. When a corporation has a monopoly it's as powerful as a government in that area but with zero accountability or transparency.
The concern here is power. The people in government choosing how to use their power are elected or responsible to someone elected. On the other hand the power structure of a corporation is a dictatorship. Pretending you can theoretically choose to not participate in society and avoid corporate control so their power isn't real power is naive.
What makes you think that a public ISP/whatever would rely on 'ever-bigger threats' for budget?
As far as actual examples, I'm pretty confident in saying that some of the organizations that produce the highest-quality media content are publicly funded. NPR or the BBC are two examples that pop into my head.
That's a poor argument because it's simply your opinion and you're not giving any evidence to show your opinion is more valuable or more correct than anybody else's.
I can claim the Criterion Collection represents the highest-quality media content ever released, and it's just as valid an opinion as yours.
Perhaps I was unclear. Facebook will violate your privacy to sell ads. The government agency will violate your privacy to justify its budget. In both cases your privacy is violated, with the additional point that you can't quit using the government agency and if you get in their grill too much they can have you killed.
> As far as actual examples, I'm pretty confident in saying that some of the organizations that produce the highest-quality media content are publicly funded. NPR or the BBC are two examples that pop into my head.
They're very high-quality, and they also generally represent a single minority point of view in their societies. The two qualities are not mutually exclusive.