Imagine what the internet would look like today if, in its early regulatory moments, our elected representatives had demanded privacy, rather than trying to ban it. Sure, some corporations would have spied on us anyway, and criminals would have done their best to compromise our privacy, but criminals and rogue firms wouldn't have been able to attract capital to engage in conduct that was likely to give rise to massive fines and criminal prosecutions for violating the privacy laws Congress never bothered to write for us.
The thought I had when reading this was the thought I had when comparing subscribing via RSS vs email. In the email subscription method, you know who the subscriber is. With RSS you don’t know anything.
Which is good in a way. But I as an author don’t have any information. It feels as if I am shouting into the void. Which is ok too. I need to be fine with it.
The point is that the article talked about encryption as a thing that makes the internet privacy positive.
Billionaires have to be solopsists, or at least, selective solipsists, who don't really believe in the humanity of the people who create their wealth and whom they wield their power over. This has always been clear, but the idea that we can replace our social connections with chatbots erases any doubt.
Billionaires just don't think we're real.