This is an open question on how to get the masses to care…
Unfortunately, if other people don’t protect their privacy it affects those who do, because we’re all connected (e.g. other family members, friends). So it presents a problem of how do you get people who don’t care, to care?
I started the Rebel Tech Alliance nonprofit to try to help with this, but we’re still really struggling to convert people who have never thought about this.
(BTW you might need to refresh our website a few times to get it to load - no idea why… It does have an SSL cert!)
So I hope we can have a useful discussion here - privacy is a team sport, how do we get more people to play?
I’ve noticed many people tend to look for alternatives when their mainstream apps are either temporarily down or become greedy.
I remember a few years ago Meta servers were down which resulted in my whole family and some friends at least partially moving over to Signal. Now it’s important that the alternative has at least the basic features people want. Most people are not ubernerds like us willing to sacrafice GIFs, emoji’s or whatever and would switch back once they realize it’s missing features.
For instance, I’ve noticed people becoming increasingly frustrated with Windows but won’t switch to Linux due to missing program or game support.
So ultimately I think the focus should be for privacy-respecting apps to be feature-complete. It’s much easier to convince someone to switch if there’s a reason to stay.
This probably means sacrificing on security features but I don’t think the goal should be for everyone to be on Qubes OS and SimpleX. Rather having at least basic online privacy and the ability to remove data on demand.
I think making it as easy and feature packed as the big commercial apps and services would go a long way.
Right now asking someone to switch to a more private service/app is not only the work of switching over, but also learning an often much more complex system.
Steal their identity and doxx them. They’ll play along after that experience
harsh! but might work lol
Great cause and one that reaches to the heart of what I see as impacting much of the governmental and societal disruption that’s happening. It’s a complex and nuanced issue that is likely to take multiple prongs and a long time to resolve.
Let me start by again generally agreeing with the point. Privacy is necessary for reasons beyond the obvious needs. Speaking to the choir here on a privacy community. I think it’s worth listing the reasons that I understand why Americans are generally dismissive of the need for privacy protections. I cheated here, and used an LLM to help, but I think these points are indicative of things to overcome.
-
Convenience > confidentiality. Nearly half of U.S. adults (47 %) say it’s acceptable for retailers to track every purchase in exchange for loyalty-card discounts, illustrating a widespread “deal first, data later” mindset. Pew Research Center
-
“Nothing to hide.” A popular refrain equates privacy with secrecy; if you’re law-abiding, the thinking goes, surveillance is harmless. The slogan is so common that rights groups still publish rebuttals to it. Amnesty International
-
Resignation and powerlessness. About 73 % feel they have little or no control over what companies do with their data, and 79 % say the same about government use—attitudes that breed fatalism rather than action. Pew Research Center
-
Policy-fatigue & click-through consent. Because privacy policies are dense and technical, 56 % of Americans routinely click “agree” without reading, while 69 % treat the notice as a hurdle to get past, not a safeguard. Pew Research Center
-
The privacy paradox. Behavioral studies keep finding a gap between high stated concern and lax real-world practice, driven by cognitive biases and social desirability effects. SAGE Journals
-
Market ideology & the “free-service” bargain. The U.S. tech economy normalizes “free” platforms funded by targeted ads; many users see data sharing as the implicit cost of innovation and participation. LinkedIn
-
Security framing. Post-9/11 narratives cast surveillance as a safety tool; even today 42 % still approve of bulk data collection for anti-terrorism, muting opposition to broader privacy safeguards. Pew Research Center
-
Harms feel abstract. People worry about privacy in the abstract, yet most haven’t suffered visible damage, so the risk seems remote compared with daily conveniences. IAPP
-
Patchwork laws. With no single federal statute, Americans face a confusing mix of state and sector rules, making privacy protections feel inconsistent and easy to ignore. Practice Guides
-
Generational normalization. Digital natives are more comfortable with surveillance; a 2023 survey found that 29 % of Gen Z would even accept in-home government cameras to curb crime. cato.org
Having listed elements to overcome, it’s easy to see why this feels sisyphean task in an American society. (It is similar, but different other Global North societies. The US desperately needs change as is evident with the current administration.) Getting to your question though, I feel like the real rational points to convey are not those above, but the reasons how a lack of privacy impacts individuals.
-
Political micro-targeting & democratic drift
Platforms mine psychographic data to serve bespoke campaign messages that exploit confirmation bias, social-proof heuristics, and loss-aversion—leaving voters receptive to turnout-suppression or “vote-against-self-interest” nudges. A 2025 study found personality-tailored ads stayed significantly more persuasive than generic ones even when users were warned they were being targeted. Nature -
Surveillance pricing & impulsive consumption
Retailers and service-providers now run “surveillance pricing” engines that fine-tune what you see—and what it costs—based on location, device, credit profile, and browsing history. By pairing granular data with scarcity cues and anchoring, these systems push consumers toward higher-priced or unnecessary purchases while dulling price-comparison instincts. Federal Trade Commission -
Dark-pattern commerce & hidden fees
Interface tricks (pre-ticked boxes, countdown timers, labyrinthine unsubscribe flows) leverage present-bias and choice overload, trapping users in subscriptions or coaxing them to reveal more data than intended. Federal Trade Commission -
Youth mental-health spiral
Algorithmic feeds intensify social-comparison and negativity biases; among U.S. teen girls, 57 % felt “persistently sad or hopeless” and nearly 1 in 3 considered suicide in 2021—a decade-high that public-health experts link in part to round-the-clock, data-driven social media exposure. CDC -
Chilling effects on knowledge, speech, and creativity
After the Snowden leaks, measurable drops in searches and Wikipedia visits for sensitive topics illustrated how surveillance primes availability and fear biases, nudging citizens away from inquiry or dissent. Common Dreams -
Algorithmic discrimination & structural inequity
Predictive-policing models recycle historically biased crime data (representativeness bias), steering patrols back to the same neighborhoods; credit-scoring and lending algorithms charge Black and Latinx borrowers higher interest (statistical discrimination), entrenching wealth gaps. American Bar AssociationRobert F. Kennedy Human Rights -
Personal-safety threats from data brokerage
Brokers sell address histories, phone numbers, and real-time location snapshots; abusers can buy dossiers on domestic-violence survivors within minutes, exploiting the “search costs” gap between seeker and subject. EPIC -
Identity theft & downstream financial harm
With 1.35 billion breach notices issued in 2024 alone, stolen data fuels phishing, tax-refund fraud, bogus credit-card openings, and years of credit-score damage—costs that disproportionately hit low-information or low-income households. ITRC -
Public-health manipulation & misinformation loops
Health conspiracies spread via engagement-optimized feeds that exploit negativity and emotional-salience biases; a 2023 analysis of Facebook found antivaccine content became more politically polarized and visible after the platform’s cleanup efforts, undercutting risk-perception and vaccination decisions. PMC -
Erosion of autonomy through behavioral “nudging”
Recommendation engines continuously A/B-test content against your micro-profile, capitalizing on novelty-seeking and variable-reward loops (think endless scroll or autoplay). Over time, the platform—rather than the user—decides how hours and attention are spent, narrowing genuine choice. Nature -
National-security & geopolitical leverage
Bulk personal and geolocation data flowing to data-hungry foreign adversaries opens doors to espionage, blackmail, and influence operations—risks so acute that the DOJ’s 2025 Data Security Program now restricts many cross-border “covered data transactions.” Department of Justice -
Social trust & civic cohesion
When 77 % of Americans say they lack faith in social-media CEOs to handle data responsibly, the result is widespread mistrust—not just of tech firms but of institutions and one another—fueling polarization and disengagement. Pew Research Center
And one last point here, is that these all stem from the way we as humans are built. Although we are capable of rational though, we often do not make rational decisions. Indeed those decisions are based on cognitive biases which we all have and are effected by context, environment, input, etc. It’s possible to overcome this lack of rational judgement, through processes and synthesis such as the scientific method. So we as citizens and humans can build institutions that help us account for the individual biases we have and overcome these biological challenges, while also enjoying the benefits and remaining human.
-
I have learned that the best game is simply not to play. You risk annoying the hell out of people. Let them get curious, maybe mention it but they have to come to you. Pushing it onto people who do not care is simply not worth it. You are wasting your time, this is real life. Some people will simply not want to care. It is their choice and sometimes that choice will not match yours.
The people I have so-called converted where people who actually were interest to know more. If you push it on people who are not interested then you risk being that annoying person who comes off as an activist or ideologue.
As a thought experiment: what would have happened if instead of a public health regulation approach, we dealt with restaurant safety by providing a few safe places and advocating everyone go there if they don’t want salmonella or e-coli poisoning. We’d have people ignorant going to the dangerous places, others misinformed or in denial, and a flood of misinformation that food poisoning is either “fine” or there’s no avoiding it anyway so best not to worry.
Interesting!
And then Fuckerberg would gaslight us by declaring that “public health is dead”
Yes, all while he’d have a private chef and a staff that keep him safe.
Another wall of text no one will ever read does nothing. Do this: https://lemmy.world/post/21620691 https://lemmy.world/post/20950542
In my experience all the good arguments in governments that change, big companies making money etc are still too abstract to people.
But i have found one argument that at least made women and older men with daughters think about it. Stalking. With reverse image search and stupid people finder apps and ai that can estimate how you look now based on an old picture and vice versa, stalking got soooo easy. Anyone can just secretely take a picture of a girl they find interesting in public and find her social media profile and see where she usually hangs out etc. (Of course also all other genders get stalked - this is just the most known example).
That can work, but it could go the other way too. We’ve already seen scaremongering claims like “right to repair will allow creepy car mechanics to stalk your location”, “encryption is used by criminals”, “local image scanning prevents child abuse”, etc.
One method is to put a $ on privacy. Consider this: if you were offered $5 for every piece of information you shared about yourself, would you still share it? Probably not.
I like this concept and I feel like that a step along the way as it is essentially what’s happening. The EULA’s, TOS’s, SLA’s, etc are all contracts, which should be negotiable by both parties and allow the individuals or groups to define value, be that monetary value (the $5) or something in trade. Some how we the masses skipped over the negotiation, and are left with an almost binary choice either accept and use it or not. (You could sue, or protest, or etc, but without standing or a large following this is not effective for an individual.)
So whilst’ I agree, I also think it might be more useful to focus on the reason the information is valuable.
I mean we already know people would go for this no questions asked.
Anyone want to join my privacy team? I’m trying out for the 2026 Olympics.
Same brooo🤣🤣
for the site see if you can reissue the cert or try certbot if u already used certbot try manyally downloading the cert an pointibng to it
The site is hosting by a hosting company - and they assure me that the cert is fine.
If I was self hosting I’d expect these problems, but not with a hosting company.
The only difference with this company is that they do not use any big tech infrastructure - they have their own servers. I wonder if big tech has something they don’t…?
idk for me it doesnt say a error just cannot complete request and https even though connections not secure its quite odd and i can use http for it an it works
really? It works with just http? that is weird.
It suggests to me that the web hosting company we are using don’t know what they’re doing. We’re going to change.
theres a lot of hosts you can find on https://kycnot.me/ if you need options still
You’re basically studying viral pathology and immunology at that point. Remember how restaurant little can be for making and for vaccinations in American culture?
On top of it taking the slightest effort … We basically have to settle the solutions and then invite or incentivize them into it, which is hard when you’re against disinformation networks with better fundling.
Not to say it’s hopeless. Just that the incentives in a highly individualized society captured under surveillance capitalism are misaligned.
Interesting you say viral pathology and immunology. Can you expand on what you mean on that a bit? I find it a useful analog for what’s going on.
I’m sorry, first of all, for the egregious typos in my last remark. I won’t be fixing them or future typos, lol.
Second, vaccines work by every person in a network being a less-weak node with less attack surface than if the whole network is without. Every person that armors up is protecting the whole system, just a little bit, until the network is complete with less attack surface.
Privacy restrictions, antivirus, healthy infosec, follow similar principals as masks and shots in arms, and you have to start studying how the threats respond to shifting attack surface.
At the point the effort to execute on the securing behavior is lowered, adoption improves, but at the point it conflicts with competing values you have to start marketing to people to do the right thing. Selling them on collective interest and on self interest. It’s ironic.
How you do ANY of this, well, I can only speculate. I come from a backwards country where 1/3 of our population successfully installed a national health director that admits to not believing in germ theory, and I half expect civilian encryption to be outlawed in the next 18 months.
you should stop calling people “normies”, if you want them to care about what you have to say
noted, and you’re right.
I actually mis-applied that term in my post. I’ve been trying to learn about tech, and self hosting in particular, along this journey. I found that ‘normies’ is the term that tech-savvy people apply to people who don’t know about tech - i.e. me! - and I started using it. In the sense of “these install instructions will never work with normies”.
In this context I shouldn’t have used it to refer to people who do not care about data privacy. I’ll edit my post.
Thank you for pointing that out!
Privacy is a team sport - how do we get more more people to play?
now you’re calling them "more"s 🙂
Sounds like something normies would say. 🤣
I call them normies not because I look down upon them or I hate them I do that because whenever I educate them to use privacy oriented services they mock me saying “you are crazy” “you aren’t president” “nobody cares about your data” yada yada yada…
It makes me frustrated :(
The problem is their arguments are not wrong. Nobody does care about your data. Which makes it so hard to convince people about the dangerous.
Framing “them” as fundamentally different reinforces the mental barrier that your requirements and their requirements are different. Avoid it.
You’d better believe marketing execs and specialists in branding will divide and conquer market segments of apathetic typical people.
Addicts in recover programs can call the general population of non-addicts ‘normies’; people that have been marginalized for neurodivergent thinking often call the mainstream population of neurotypicals ‘normies’ etc.
Gatekeeping by commonly accepted language across diverse circles only serves for your own purity testing instead of focusing on the core issue of how to sell people on exercising their own basic self-interest.
Adult people talking like that lol
🤡
I generally tell them to put a ring camera in their bathroom and then see them get bent out of shape about they wouldn’t do that because…
I mean that is a stupid argument and probably does more to hurt your argument then help.
yeah that is definitely the core of the problem
Starting by not calling people that don’t know/care about privacy “normies”, and educating them I guess.
Also I’d say start with the “easier” ones, for instance anti-capitalist people are more open to find ways to avoid surveillance capitalism. If enough of these people care and educate their respective circles, eventually all people will care.
Also I’d say start with the “easier” ones, for instance anti-capitalist people are more open to find ways to avoid surveillance capitalism. If enough of these people care and educate their respective circles, eventually all people will care.
And pro-capitalism people should simply avoid being under surveillance of someone who can potentially help their competition with targetted info about them.
I have friends and family who occupy both sides of the political spectrum, so it’s impossible to have just one message that suits both. That’s why I’ve largely avoided politics my whole life…
But tech has become political, so it’s not that easy to avoid anymore 😬
On my website homepage Rebel Tech Alliance.org I try and make it clear that we’re trying to undermine a business model, not a political ideology. But the presence of the word ‘capitalism’ in surveillance capitalism does trigger some people to start talking politics.
Webpage not accessible
I think certain arguments work, and certain don’t.
I live in a very high trust society, Norway. This has a lot of advantages, but also some downsides.
We trust eachother, our neighbours, our government and our media. Which is fantastic, and well deserved. The government deserves the trust.
This makes it hard for me to make people realize how important privacy is, because they trust organizations with their data.
During COVID, Norway made their own app for tracking who met to prevent the spread. Of all the apps in the world, Norway wanted to push about the least privacy friendly app in the world. This from a country with the highest press freedom and rankings for democracy. Most people though it was fine, because why not? We trust our government.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/06/norway-covid19-contact-tracing-app-privacy-win/
Luckily someone protested enough, and it got scrapped for something better.
When I try to convince someone I have a couple of angles:
-
You trust the government and organizations with your data today. But do you trust the government in 30 years? Because data is forever. The US has changed a lot in a very short time, this can happen here as well
-
You have a responsibility for other peoples privacy as well. When you use an app that gets access to all your SMSes and contacts you spy on behalf of companies on people that might need protection. Asylum seekers from other countries for instance.
This is a VERY interesting perspective - thank you for sharing!
You are lucky in Norway to have that level of trust, but I’d never considered the flip side: that it would create a dangerous apathy about privacy.
Your two angles are great:
-
This is so true but for some it is so nebulous, and it countries like the UK (and especially if you are white and not struggling financially) then there is an exceptionalism that creeps into the thinking. Probably because we’ve never been invaded and occupied. I was in Norway last year, and Denmark this year, and no one wants that to happen again. It seems to have shaped thinking a lot - correct me if i’m wrong 😊
-
This is a big one - privacy is a collective problem. It’s a team sport. I have had some success with this argument.
What’s very hard is to convey to people just how amazingly powerful and efficient big tech’s profiling models really are. Trillions of computations a minute to keep your creepy digital twin up to date. Most people cannot get their head round the scale of it, and I’m struggling to visualise it for them!
-
Something similar happened in Denmark with the new Sundhedsloven, which had provisions allowing the government to forcefully isolate people in concentration camps, along with forcefully vaccinating them. This was during the COVID-19 pandemia.
This was of course alarming for those who were in the know, but very few people protested (and the law was subsequently amended), but the general attitude from the public was “it’s not a problem because something like THAT would ever happen in Denmark.” 🤡
The Swedish authorities have been known to mess with the reproductive rights of minorities, didn’t Denmark also meddle in extremely unethical bullshit? Is your comment an obvious reference I’m missing?
We had some emergency law that was almost passed recently. As in it passed the first of two rounds. The second voting round is just a formality, all laws are just passed after the first in practice. Luckily some law professor raised the alarms and it did not pass the second time. So within a couple of hours margin it was stopped.
The law gave the government the ability to force people to do a lot of stuff, work any job at any place in Norway. If you do not comply you could get up to three years in prison. It would not be a problem with the current or any government in the near future, but it is a law. And we can’t have laws that rely on trusting politicians. Because we might have politicians with anti democratic tendencies in the future
This is the same argument against trusting opaque algorithms from proprietary systems (usually billionaire owned). You just don’t know when they’re going to tweak it for their purposes.
Convince them to trust open source
The only source that can be trusted ✊
While I agree in theory, in practice open source has a similar amount of expected trust as closed source can have in many cases. I use all sorts of open source software without reading the code. I ain’t got time for that.
I can trust that software from a lot of organizations are trustworthy even if it is closed source, but I can’t trust any open source repo without reading the code. I habe to use other ways to evaluate it, is it probable that someone has audited it? Is it popular? Is it recognized as safe and trustworthy? Is the published and finished build the same as the one I would get if I built it myself?
But yes, you can never be 100% certain without open source and auditing it yourself.
I do trust that my travel pass app from a government organization doesn’t install malware / spyware on my phone. I can’t trust a random github repo even if it is open source.
-
