Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> And similarly, the right to free speech has traditionally been seen as protecting the rights of minorities, whereas recently we've seen an uptick in folks claiming that free speech mostly protects those with power.

This seems like a self-refuting argument. You want privacy if you need to be protected from those in power. You want someone else to not have privacy if you want those in power to protect you from them. But those in power being against you is practically the definition of a persecuted minority.

Think about the phrase "women and minorities." The reason women have to be mentioned separately is that they're actually a slight majority of the population, but not (always) an ideological majority of the power base. What matters is who has the majority of the power, not who has the majority of the population.

But then that goes the other way too. There are specific issues on which a demographic minority (or women) have the support of the majority of power. In that case the "minority" consists of e.g. falsely accused defendants.

Which means that when you hear some historical minorities saying they don't want privacy, what you're really hearing is that in some cases they are no longer ideological minorities. Which I suppose you could call progress, but that doesn't make the new majority any more right than the old majority about what what the minority needs.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: