17:40:13 [weezzee] IM HAXOR 😎️ 17:44:36 [weezzee] NOW ITS TIME TO WATCH THE MASK ON REPEAT AND MEMORIZE ALL THE LINES SO I CAN BECOME MORE LIKE THE MASK IN MY DAY TO DAY LIFE

Can I play this using a tile set on Linux without Steam?

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.

The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who takes things that are yours and mine.

The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.

https://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/“stealing-common-goose”/

Hi Shelley! How are you? I really hope you’re doing well. Shelley, we didn’t go to school together and you’re not my kris kringle, I’m at work and I need x. Ping me if you need anything. Also donuts in the kitchen.

but the argument I have nothing to hide except bank account passwords etc is hard to argue with

It’s simple to argue against: any and all data points are either potential threat vectors, or will in aggregate paint a better picture of the individual they pertain to, for the data’s possessor to use as they wish. A default-deny policy for data creation/access makes as much sense for individuals as it does workplaces.

‘No one’s spying on me, I’m not interesting’ is more pernicious than Nothing to Hide. Most adults can kind of sense the idiocy of the latter refrain. But ask the utterer why advertising is a trillion-dollar industry if their attitudes and behaviours aren’t interesting, or why a data broking industry even exists, and you’ll typically be asked ‘why care?’

What’s harder to work out is whether the utterance is a genuine failure to comprehend the nature of surveillance capitalism, or a grasping denial of its impact, as though they’re only 80 per cent convinced of their footprint’s worthlessness. It’s difficult to convince someone to turn down their data faucet when they barely acknowledge the faucet’s existence to start with.

AZIZ

Talk about digital privacy like you talk about physical health.

I don’t decide to consign myself to a life of fast food and video games because I’m a currently a bit flabby and sedentary. That’s called defeatism. If we thought about our health this way we’d all be better off dead. Rather, I recognise I’m at a particular point on a spectrum due to neglect, and take conscious action to move towards the optimal state: I walk to the shops. I take the stairs. I get in more greens.

Normie has to be shown a new perspective on a domain of his life he thinks he has filed away for good (no doubt due to discomfort). His privacy is not a balloon that becomes a discardable bit of plastic once popped; in fact it’s something he can tend and hone, as diligently as he does his ab or skincare routines.

He doesn’t care now because the issues surrounding digital privacy aren’t relevant to him. They are not relevant because the structures and technologies posing the issues are inscrutable, and condition individuals into believing they have zero agency. That’s why he’ll cede virtually anything for the sake of achieving a BAU task five minutes faster on $ProprietaryApp - he assigns nil value to those personal properties he’s convinced he cannot personally secure. He won’t reappraise his values until doubt over that comfortable certainty has crept in.

It’s going to take charitable people modelling the change they want to see, explaining in social settings why they’re paying cash at this venue or not using Chrome or aren’t contactable on WhatsApp. And the foundation of that is suitable language. My good health is a product of my routines, my knowledge of what is harmful and beneficial to it, my awareness of the various threat vectors, and my social circle’s recognition and encouragement of healthy living. The same applies for privacy.