this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
506 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
73379 readers
4567 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, people are not being forced to buy this shit. So it’s on the idiots who think they have nothing to hide. Just Google something like “why are people ok with cameras inside their house “ and you’ll see many many people basically saying “don’t care, I have nothing to hide, everyone has a pussy/dick”
We still need to protect the idiots. Thats why we're banning asbestos and have safety codes. How is this any different?
IT and privacy is too abstract for non-tech people. Bring examples with people instead of the tech devices to make an impact.
Things like this:
Isn't roofing too abstract either? 100% majority of people dont know how prevalent asbestos was in roofing material and what even asbestos does but yet if you tell anyone thay their shit has asbestos in it they'll be quick to rush to alternatives. Sometimes people just need to be told what to do.
That's right. But how detrimental asbestos is took time to be made abundantly clear and known, plus "authorities" got involved, so the sheep listened. With surveillance, the same "authorities" want the public to be ignorant so that they can keep it going without us countering it.
Similar situations, but certainly not equal.
This is the right approach. Normies won't pay attention to any "your privacy is at risk" argument. But showing them examples (plural, as 1 instance won't do shit either and will just be dismissed) of people getting fucked by all the surveillance COULD make some of them take it into consideration (no guarantees).
I do not agree that people that allow these devices into their homes are idiots. I see them more as "ignorantly lazy".
We need to protect uninformed people. You do this by informing them. If they know the risks and still decide they don't care it's their problem, not ours.
Not if they are willingly bringing this inside their homes. I think it’s very different from substances that you might not be aware are there and are highly toxic.
People who claim they don't value privacy are simply ignorant of how this can affect them. They don't consider the data falling into the wrong hands. Surely they don't want criminals with unauthorized access at least. It should be obvious that governments don't always have their best interests either.
I mean, you might think that but you underestimate how willing people are to give up their privacy and freedom just to feel safe.
Not even for feeling safe. For convenience is enough.
The cops can come to them to get video on you. So you’re impacted.
Right but if my neighbor across the street has one, my house is being surveilled a lot more than is theirs.