Hacker News Reader

That sounds like an accelerationist position: instead of having some remnants of privacy, make them lose it all so they realize the value and take action to get back full/more privacy.

What if the revolution never happens? Then what little "privacy theater" stood between the corporations and the users is swept away. When corporations need to show some restraint, even if only to not appear completely evil, at least it's some restraint.

View on HN

You and I must have very different ideas about what "privacy theater" means. To me, privacy theater is the _illusion_ of privacy not real privacy.

So, removing "privacy theater" does nothing to your actual privacy and only shows you how exposed you really are.

I'm generally opposed to accelerationism because it's too black-and-white. When there's some good to preserve, that's usually worth preserving. However, in this case I think we're already at the bottom since these methods are used regularly. Having a coworker know whether I read their email is the most benign version of tracking (even though I still don't like it).

The difference to me is that accelerationism says "it's bad; let's make it worse so that people will realize they need a revolution". Anti-theater says "it's bad; let's tell people know how bad it is".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com