1. Mark Zuckerberg has a much larger risk of negative privacy consequences than the average person. Also, this was probably done more for physical safety than for privacy.
2. If all of people’s emails we’re getting forwarded to random other people they encounter on online forums like HN, then people would be upset.
The point is that people don’t get terribly upset at extremely small risks of minor negative consequences from privacy issues.
These counterarguments are pretty weak, and are essentially:
Oh, so you don’t worry about getting struck by lightning? Then why don’t you go out in a field holding a lightning rod during a lightning storm? crickets
> The point is that people don’t get terribly upset at extremely small risks of minor negative consequences from privacy issues.
No, they don't get terribly upset because they don't (1) understand the potential consequences well enough and (2) it doesn't affect them until it does. We have a very clear mental model of what happens if we get struck by lightning (I go to the hospital and my skin gets charred) but we don't for data privacy.
Huh? Not sure what privacy policies have to do with this. I'm talking about the mental model for the consequences of giving your privacy up. The mental model for the getting hit by a lightning strike is pretty clear for most people...fire = physical hurt...giving privacy up? Not so much.
2. If all of people’s emails we’re getting forwarded to random other people they encounter on online forums like HN, then people would be upset.
The point is that people don’t get terribly upset at extremely small risks of minor negative consequences from privacy issues.
These counterarguments are pretty weak, and are essentially:
Oh, so you don’t worry about getting struck by lightning? Then why don’t you go out in a field holding a lightning rod during a lightning storm? crickets