privacy is your local scope where you perform your local reasoning
maybe people who don't think privacy is important are okay with programming by only mutating global variables
@brainwane well if you think so then maybe it really is! :)
@cwebber
Perfect!!! This is a very welcome and powerful analogy.
@cwebber Exactly this. We’re talking about basic encapsulation here. Only, instead of intangible objects, we’re talking about the encapsulation of human beings; of personhood. That’s what we’re on the brink of losing if the fundamental technological infrastructures of our societies violate the integrity of personhood by default.
@cwebber (This is exactly what I’m trying to get across at the EU level. The main retort to surveillance capitalism from the traditional left that’s surfacing here replaces violation of human encapsulation by corporations with the same violation by the state (at the local or national levels; the current focus is at the city level). I think I got them to include it in this month’s Amsterdam initiative to reframe the digital single market. Integrity of personhood is nonnegotiable.)
@cwebber assembly: "what's a variable?"
@cwebber functional programmers love privacy pass it on
@cwebber major <3 to this distinction of local scope. Build good #NearCompute & #LocalSystems and #HomeBases & figure out state transfer & exchange latter (maybe via #ForgeFed).
@cwebber @rocketpilot This puts me in a bit of a pickle as that's a great and trenchant metaphor, but I've personally always liked global variables more than common wisdom would hold. (Similarly, the rise of NATs dismayed me; one IP, one endpoint!)
@cwebber How have I never noticed this on your profile before.
@cwebber This is an interesting lens! Thank you