Talk:1269: Privacy Opinions - Revision history

143.254.2.7 at 17:20, 13 April 2026

2026-04-13T17:20:49Z

85.76.64.2 at 07:47, 4 September 2025

2025-09-04T07:47:39Z

Maplestrip at 13:11, 10 January 2024

2024-01-10T13:11:17Z

172.69.43.220 at 14:41, 5 January 2024

2024-01-05T14:41:53Z

172.71.178.187 at 19:10, 12 December 2022

2022-12-12T19:10:59Z

172.70.214.243 at 22:22, 10 December 2022

2022-12-10T22:22:52Z

172.70.211.145 at 21:43, 10 December 2022

2022-12-10T21:43:35Z

172.70.162.147 at 22:08, 8 April 2022

2022-04-08T22:08:07Z

Rereading xkcd at 03:08, 7 April 2020

2020-04-07T03:08:26Z

141.101.107.60 at 11:25, 1 March 2018

2018-03-01T11:25:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:20, 13 April 2026
Line 83:		Line 83:

	Wow, feels wild to realize back in 2013 people had actual opinions about being spied on, and (at least some on them) didn't accept it. Now everyone has silently became some kind of nihilist/burrito-eater hybrid. [[Special:Contributions/85.76.64.2\|85.76.64.2]] 07:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)		Wow, feels wild to realize back in 2013 people had actual opinions about being spied on, and (at least some on them) didn't accept it. Now everyone has silently became some kind of nihilist/burrito-eater hybrid. [[Special:Contributions/85.76.64.2\|85.76.64.2]] 07:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	I just noticed that A Softer World 987, posted about a month before this comic, says thet they have no idea what the "metadata" someone spies on is, and the title text of that comic says that they will "put anything in their mouth that is given to them". This comic could be referencing that A Softer World comic? 17:20, Apr 13 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:47, 4 September 2025
Line 81:		Line 81:
	Someone just added: "The Exhibitionist presents a comedic inverse of a reasonable privacy concern: that people you don't know are getting off from secretly watching you. Celebrities are likely targets for this behavior, and anyone could suddenly be launched into fame." - starts off Ok, but the 'concern' seems to be from the employee (or the 'custodes' who definitely knows that they're being 'custodiet'ed, in turn, over their shoulder?). The speculative broadcaster of their own 'private acts' is the most obvious person deriving pleasure from the scenario. And, apparently, would do so even if there ''wasn't'' an observer (a kind of warped flip of Heisenburg's cat-in-a-box scenario!)... It's still an inverse scenario, but in different ways. True that being overly free and unconcerned whilst 'non-famous' is known to specifically come back to bite those who later become public figures (it seems to be that every other month some rising political star gets 'outed' for having said something beyond the pale as a spotty-teenaged twitterer; I'm sure most STTs do, but normally it's only once you start being an RPS/equivalent where such dirt is 'worth' being dragged up in public). But the non-exhibitionist private individual probably also doesn't want to be targetted, either (whether or not it even sparks fame/infamy just amongst 'specialist interest' corners of the internet) for current or somewhat naïve prior actions. Not to mention that an 'exhibitionist' who gets an internal thrill from the rather niche idea of there being voyeurs always out there might not be one who would 'go all the way' and exhibit themselves in proven ways (on the street, or by self-publishing on imageboards). Getting to know that all their 'safe fantasy' is actually a real thing might be as bad as having actual private (for given expectations of 'private') material leaked to the world and/or reassociated with them at an inconvenient future time. ...which is all far beyond the proven scope of the comic. And the length of these thoughts reflect how unable I was to tersely summarise necessary changes into new addition to make it not so 'wrong' in the ways I explained. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.220\|172.69.43.220]] 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)		Someone just added: "The Exhibitionist presents a comedic inverse of a reasonable privacy concern: that people you don't know are getting off from secretly watching you. Celebrities are likely targets for this behavior, and anyone could suddenly be launched into fame." - starts off Ok, but the 'concern' seems to be from the employee (or the 'custodes' who definitely knows that they're being 'custodiet'ed, in turn, over their shoulder?). The speculative broadcaster of their own 'private acts' is the most obvious person deriving pleasure from the scenario. And, apparently, would do so even if there ''wasn't'' an observer (a kind of warped flip of Heisenburg's cat-in-a-box scenario!)... It's still an inverse scenario, but in different ways. True that being overly free and unconcerned whilst 'non-famous' is known to specifically come back to bite those who later become public figures (it seems to be that every other month some rising political star gets 'outed' for having said something beyond the pale as a spotty-teenaged twitterer; I'm sure most STTs do, but normally it's only once you start being an RPS/equivalent where such dirt is 'worth' being dragged up in public). But the non-exhibitionist private individual probably also doesn't want to be targetted, either (whether or not it even sparks fame/infamy just amongst 'specialist interest' corners of the internet) for current or somewhat naïve prior actions. Not to mention that an 'exhibitionist' who gets an internal thrill from the rather niche idea of there being voyeurs always out there might not be one who would 'go all the way' and exhibit themselves in proven ways (on the street, or by self-publishing on imageboards). Getting to know that all their 'safe fantasy' is actually a real thing might be as bad as having actual private (for given expectations of 'private') material leaked to the world and/or reassociated with them at an inconvenient future time. ...which is all far beyond the proven scope of the comic. And the length of these thoughts reflect how unable I was to tersely summarise necessary changes into new addition to make it not so 'wrong' in the ways I explained. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.220\|172.69.43.220]] 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Yeah there's a lot here. Me swerving into the impact of fame was probably unhelpful and I may remove that aspect. However, I think it as a comedic inverse of the common concern of voyeurs is still a valid reading. It's the closest the comic gets to showing a reason why people may be concerned about their privacy... [[User:Maplestrip\|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip\|talk]]) 13:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)		:Yeah there's a lot here. Me swerving into the impact of fame was probably unhelpful and I may remove that aspect. However, I think it as a comedic inverse of the common concern of voyeurs is still a valid reading. It's the closest the comic gets to showing a reason why people may be concerned about their privacy... [[User:Maplestrip\|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip\|talk]]) 13:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	Wow, feels wild to realize back in 2013 people had actual opinions about being spied on, and (at least some on them) didn't accept it. Now everyone has silently became some kind of nihilist/burrito-eater hybrid. [[Special:Contributions/85.76.64.2\|85.76.64.2]] 07:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, 10 January 2024
Line 80:		Line 80:

	Someone just added: "The Exhibitionist presents a comedic inverse of a reasonable privacy concern: that people you don't know are getting off from secretly watching you. Celebrities are likely targets for this behavior, and anyone could suddenly be launched into fame." - starts off Ok, but the 'concern' seems to be from the employee (or the 'custodes' who definitely knows that they're being 'custodiet'ed, in turn, over their shoulder?). The speculative broadcaster of their own 'private acts' is the most obvious person deriving pleasure from the scenario. And, apparently, would do so even if there ''wasn't'' an observer (a kind of warped flip of Heisenburg's cat-in-a-box scenario!)... It's still an inverse scenario, but in different ways. True that being overly free and unconcerned whilst 'non-famous' is known to specifically come back to bite those who later become public figures (it seems to be that every other month some rising political star gets 'outed' for having said something beyond the pale as a spotty-teenaged twitterer; I'm sure most STTs do, but normally it's only once you start being an RPS/equivalent where such dirt is 'worth' being dragged up in public). But the non-exhibitionist private individual probably also doesn't want to be targetted, either (whether or not it even sparks fame/infamy just amongst 'specialist interest' corners of the internet) for current or somewhat naïve prior actions. Not to mention that an 'exhibitionist' who gets an internal thrill from the rather niche idea of there being voyeurs always out there might not be one who would 'go all the way' and exhibit themselves in proven ways (on the street, or by self-publishing on imageboards). Getting to know that all their 'safe fantasy' is actually a real thing might be as bad as having actual private (for given expectations of 'private') material leaked to the world and/or reassociated with them at an inconvenient future time. ...which is all far beyond the proven scope of the comic. And the length of these thoughts reflect how unable I was to tersely summarise necessary changes into new addition to make it not so 'wrong' in the ways I explained. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.220\|172.69.43.220]] 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)		Someone just added: "The Exhibitionist presents a comedic inverse of a reasonable privacy concern: that people you don't know are getting off from secretly watching you. Celebrities are likely targets for this behavior, and anyone could suddenly be launched into fame." - starts off Ok, but the 'concern' seems to be from the employee (or the 'custodes' who definitely knows that they're being 'custodiet'ed, in turn, over their shoulder?). The speculative broadcaster of their own 'private acts' is the most obvious person deriving pleasure from the scenario. And, apparently, would do so even if there ''wasn't'' an observer (a kind of warped flip of Heisenburg's cat-in-a-box scenario!)... It's still an inverse scenario, but in different ways. True that being overly free and unconcerned whilst 'non-famous' is known to specifically come back to bite those who later become public figures (it seems to be that every other month some rising political star gets 'outed' for having said something beyond the pale as a spotty-teenaged twitterer; I'm sure most STTs do, but normally it's only once you start being an RPS/equivalent where such dirt is 'worth' being dragged up in public). But the non-exhibitionist private individual probably also doesn't want to be targetted, either (whether or not it even sparks fame/infamy just amongst 'specialist interest' corners of the internet) for current or somewhat naïve prior actions. Not to mention that an 'exhibitionist' who gets an internal thrill from the rather niche idea of there being voyeurs always out there might not be one who would 'go all the way' and exhibit themselves in proven ways (on the street, or by self-publishing on imageboards). Getting to know that all their 'safe fantasy' is actually a real thing might be as bad as having actual private (for given expectations of 'private') material leaked to the world and/or reassociated with them at an inconvenient future time. ...which is all far beyond the proven scope of the comic. And the length of these thoughts reflect how unable I was to tersely summarise necessary changes into new addition to make it not so 'wrong' in the ways I explained. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.220\|172.69.43.220]] 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
		+	:Yeah there's a lot here. Me swerving into the impact of fame was probably unhelpful and I may remove that aspect. However, I think it as a comedic inverse of the common concern of voyeurs is still a valid reading. It's the closest the comic gets to showing a reason why people may be concerned about their privacy... [[User:Maplestrip\|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip\|talk]]) 13:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 5 January 2024
Line 78:		Line 78:
	:"Valenced", I think, in every example*. Not "valanced". Possibly an inspired riff off the initial "ambivalence", but certainly {{wiktionary\|valence\|meaning 5}} applies here, in which variously negative and positive (psychological) values are explicitly its thing.		:"Valenced", I think, in every example*. Not "valanced". Possibly an inspired riff off the initial "ambivalence", but certainly {{wiktionary\|valence\|meaning 5}} applies here, in which variously negative and positive (psychological) values are explicitly its thing.
	:( * - if you spot any that aren't, then you can change them. As you can always change it anyway. But it all looks to be perfectly cromulent to me! Well, at least in that respect...) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187\|172.71.178.187]] 19:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)		:( * - if you spot any that aren't, then you can change them. As you can always change it anyway. But it all looks to be perfectly cromulent to me! Well, at least in that respect...) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187\|172.71.178.187]] 19:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	Someone just added: "The Exhibitionist presents a comedic inverse of a reasonable privacy concern: that people you don't know are getting off from secretly watching you. Celebrities are likely targets for this behavior, and anyone could suddenly be launched into fame." - starts off Ok, but the 'concern' seems to be from the employee (or the 'custodes' who definitely knows that they're being 'custodiet'ed, in turn, over their shoulder?). The speculative broadcaster of their own 'private acts' is the most obvious person deriving pleasure from the scenario. And, apparently, would do so even if there ''wasn't'' an observer (a kind of warped flip of Heisenburg's cat-in-a-box scenario!)... It's still an inverse scenario, but in different ways. True that being overly free and unconcerned whilst 'non-famous' is known to specifically come back to bite those who later become public figures (it seems to be that every other month some rising political star gets 'outed' for having said something beyond the pale as a spotty-teenaged twitterer; I'm sure most STTs do, but normally it's only once you start being an RPS/equivalent where such dirt is 'worth' being dragged up in public). But the non-exhibitionist private individual probably also doesn't want to be targetted, either (whether or not it even sparks fame/infamy just amongst 'specialist interest' corners of the internet) for current or somewhat naïve prior actions. Not to mention that an 'exhibitionist' who gets an internal thrill from the rather niche idea of there being voyeurs always out there might not be one who would 'go all the way' and exhibit themselves in proven ways (on the street, or by self-publishing on imageboards). Getting to know that all their 'safe fantasy' is actually a real thing might be as bad as having actual private (for given expectations of 'private') material leaked to the world and/or reassociated with them at an inconvenient future time. ...which is all far beyond the proven scope of the comic. And the length of these thoughts reflect how unable I was to tersely summarise necessary changes into new addition to make it not so 'wrong' in the ways I explained. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.220\|172.69.43.220]] 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 12 December 2022
Line 76:		Line 76:
	https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valanced		https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valanced
	So why the heck is it being used to describe whether something has positive or negative connotations? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.145\|172.70.211.145]] 21:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)		So why the heck is it being used to describe whether something has positive or negative connotations? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.145\|172.70.211.145]] 21:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
		+	:"Valenced", I think, in every example*. Not "valanced". Possibly an inspired riff off the initial "ambivalence", but certainly {{wiktionary\|valence\|meaning 5}} applies here, in which variously negative and positive (psychological) values are explicitly its thing.
		+	:( * - if you spot any that aren't, then you can change them. As you can always change it anyway. But it all looks to be perfectly cromulent to me! Well, at least in that respect...) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187\|172.71.178.187]] 19:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 Can someone please just rewrite this explanation? However well (or not well) it's written, it blatantly fails at its job of being an explanation because it gets sidetracked with analysis and criticism of Randall's work. It honestly does not deserve this much of an essay, and I'm evidently not the only one with this issue. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 22:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
-I feel that it should be pointed out that “valanced means drapery in English, according to Merriam-Webster
+I feel that it should be pointed out that “valanced” means drapery in English, according to Merriam-Webster
 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valanced
 So why the heck is it being used to describe whether something has positive or negative connotations? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.145|172.70.211.145]] 21:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 10 December 2022
Line 72:		Line 72:

	Can someone please just rewrite this explanation? However well (or not well) it's written, it blatantly fails at its job of being an explanation because it gets sidetracked with analysis and criticism of Randall's work. It honestly does not deserve this much of an essay, and I'm evidently not the only one with this issue. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147\|172.70.162.147]] 22:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)		Can someone please just rewrite this explanation? However well (or not well) it's written, it blatantly fails at its job of being an explanation because it gets sidetracked with analysis and criticism of Randall's work. It honestly does not deserve this much of an essay, and I'm evidently not the only one with this issue. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147\|172.70.162.147]] 22:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	I feel that it should be pointed out that “valanced means drapery in English, according to Merriam-Webster
		+	https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valanced
		+	So why the heck is it being used to describe whether something has positive or negative connotations? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.145\|172.70.211.145]] 21:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:08, 8 April 2022
Line 70:		Line 70:

	Just wanted to comment on “Beret guy is frequently seen as bizarrely disconnected from reality in a way that is maladaptive” - he can make ridiculous amounts of money just by “being in business”, without knowing or caring about what’s going on. He is always serenely happy and high on existence, and the whole world bends around his whims. What on earth is maladaptive about that?		Just wanted to comment on “Beret guy is frequently seen as bizarrely disconnected from reality in a way that is maladaptive” - he can make ridiculous amounts of money just by “being in business”, without knowing or caring about what’s going on. He is always serenely happy and high on existence, and the whole world bends around his whims. What on earth is maladaptive about that?
		+
		+	Can someone please just rewrite this explanation? However well (or not well) it's written, it blatantly fails at its job of being an explanation because it gets sidetracked with analysis and criticism of Randall's work. It honestly does not deserve this much of an essay, and I'm evidently not the only one with this issue. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147\|172.70.162.147]] 22:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:08, 7 April 2020
Line 68:		Line 68:
	Why is this explanation a goddamn thesis on the comic? Is all this detail necessary? I call for a simplification of the page. I do not perform the simplification myself because the page as it is bores me too much to revise it. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172\|198.41.230.172]] 21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)		Why is this explanation a goddamn thesis on the comic? Is all this detail necessary? I call for a simplification of the page. I do not perform the simplification myself because the page as it is bores me too much to revise it. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172\|198.41.230.172]] 21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
	:I moved a comment from 2014 to under this topic as it seems relevant to it. Sorry if that's not a legal maneuver.[[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172\|198.41.230.172]] 21:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)		:I moved a comment from 2014 to under this topic as it seems relevant to it. Sorry if that's not a legal maneuver.[[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172\|198.41.230.172]] 21:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	Just wanted to comment on “Beret guy is frequently seen as bizarrely disconnected from reality in a way that is maladaptive” - he can make ridiculous amounts of money just by “being in business”, without knowing or caring about what’s going on. He is always serenely happy and high on existence, and the whole world bends around his whims. What on earth is maladaptive about that?

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 Can somebody please rewrite the last section which is extremely biased against the comic, seeming to attack the ideas presented and suggesting that Randall doesn't care at all about civil rights.  It violates the idea of a neutral explanation and is seen to be pushing the writers point of view.  This bias is especially evident to a person who disagrees with this point of view (because, seriously, who cares if the govt. knows about your dinner plans or your big break up or even your love of perfectly legal porn.  They don't care.  If you do think that they're interested in that, then you are vastly overestimating your importance).  Can somebody who is better at writing please rewrite that section with a more neutral (or at least ballanced) tone?  --Imamadmad 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
-== Page needs simplification ==
+; Page needs simplification
 Why is this explanation a goddamn thesis on the comic? Is all this detail necessary? I call for a simplification of the page. I do not perform the simplification myself because the page as it is bores me too much to revise it. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 :I moved a comment from 2014 to under this topic as it seems relevant to it. Sorry if that's not a legal maneuver.[[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 21:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)