There's two different issues here. One is "security" and/or "privacy" and the other is principle.
As far as "security" and "privacy," I already mentioned in post #15642223 (earlier in this thread) that security is not a "checkbox." You will need to understand your risks in real terms before you can create security. More and more people are choosing that having a GPS tracking device in their pocket at all times and open microphones throughout their house that are streaming the sound over the internet on queued demand is not a serious risk to them and they're comfortable with that in exchange for the convenience of location services and voice assistants. They've got internet-connected video cameras at their bedside. They just don't care. For them, concern about such things is just a quirky mental obstacle that burdens other people but not them. They're like nudists that are acclimated to that lifestyle that is only disturbing to people who are stuck in "old ways."
Ironically, the thing that actually threatens these people the most is a risk of losing the invasive device's intrusion into their lives. Ransomware threatens to brick their precious phone -- the very thing a lot of us would gladly do to those things ourselves.
Some people think "security" is accomplished by strong authentication and identity confirmation -- ha. All your passwords, biometrics, two-factor authentication, and encryption do is improve the signal-to-noise ratio, eliminate plausible deniability, and validate the intelligence as good.
As for the "principle" part -- I get it. After this week especially, there's a lot of people that would rather have nothing to do with Apple, Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Godaddy, or even American Express.
In the words of Homer Simpson, (paraphrasing because I'm not going to look it up): "Striking is un-American. Real Americans just go to work and do a half-assed job." The same approach is often taken toward offensive services -- instead of stomping out in contempt, people choose just to continue to patronize them, but more out of vindictive self-interest than genuine patronage.
So rather than "quit" a social media site for invasive practices and offensive meddling, people choose to create a half-dozen fake accounts, stir up [bleep], flame bait, troll, spam, and generally make it a miserable experience for anyone who still takes it seriously. "Facebook" is conceivably only a short time away from being on the tech dung pile where its predecessor "My Space" rests. The fact that Facebook has survived longer isn't as remarkable as just how fast My Space went down from a once dominant position in social media. On the other hand, Facebook has become so valuable and cooperative to the intelligence community, it's doubtful it will go down in lieu of any less cooperative alternative. Still, all that really has to happen is for people to make a different choice, and all that's necessary for that is for them to see a different possibility. Can the spooks and other powers-that-be stomp out un-cooperative alternatives? They've closed doors before, like Napster and Mega-upload and they've probably gotten a lot better at closing them before many people go through them so that when they close, it's little-known.
I'm not advocating "trashing" social media sites. When an urban area starts to decay, decent people just move out at the first opportunity. But they rarely get totally abandoned. Instead, they accumulate detritus and blight. "Big tech" has an enormous task ahead of them not only clean-up cyber-blight, but to try to retain value-generating content and attention. I'm sure the portion of corporate leaders that are more interested in the bottom line than social and political activism were persuaded by the argument that this was an opportunity to clean up right-wing extremist blight. They miscalculated it. It's like the miscalculation of those that thought it was more important not to miss one VC than it was to avoid taking an innocent, and for every innocent they took, they made ten enemy. What is far worse than alienating a bunch of consumers, these media brokers turned off the only source of productive value they ever had.
If you're looking for a conscientious prescription, the situation is far worse than you believe. The facts are that all of this technology that we're using is based on innovations that were developed to exploit and dominate people through surveillance, intelligence gathering, and deception. The cute tales about geeky visionaries working out of their garage are just so much bull. The fake history for the longest time was based on the 1964 ENIAC, but that was because the real history was all classified. It started at least 20 years earlier with the Colossus at Bletchley Park. It was all invented by the spooks, for the spooks. It was never intended for anything else. The whole thing is a colossal surveillance and intelligence gathering scheme. It was conceived that way from the beginning -- not, as so many are led to believe, becoming one as an afterthought. The winners and losers in "innovation" are determined by the ones that are useful to that purpose. The history of IT is littered with evidence of this. It suffices to say that it all began this way and that nothing has changed. You won't find any prescription that isn't designed to fu*k you.
You can find a little relief from the "resistance" -- the free software movement. You need to understand that the "free" is as in "libre" not just free as in "gratis." GNU software and it's adopted Linux kernel is generally regarded as the core of tech liberty. Free software is by definition "Open Source" but Open Source is not necessarily free as it can be proprietary. Just using free software doesn't liberate you from tech tyranny. What are you going to do? Use your Ubuntu machine and Midori browser to post on Facebook, chat on Whatsapp, upload your camera's data to Instagram, and shop on Amazon? You might as well just bend over in front of Alexa.
If you really want a break from "It," and have already taken a nice long walk in nature with your dog, I suggest Amateur Radio. There's no privacy (FCC regs require you to announce your call sign and Sigint can easily record everything across the allocated spectrum), but unlike the Internet, there is no inherent malicious design. It's a cool techy avocation with endless possibilities. There's a social aspect in clubs or on-the-air ragchews, but you can also be introverted and focus on scientific or engineering aspects. You'll encounter bullies and jerks (like here on the fire), but most of the people involved are decent and amiable (as is also the case for most of the avocations associated with those here on the fire). The fact is, most of what all these people today are crazy about are radios. That's what a smartphone is. The smartphone is a radio with a malicious intent and design controlled by others. An amateur radio need not be. You control it entirely and can in fact design your own.
