Join us 2026-02-13T22:00:00Z for This Week in Privacy #40, to catch up on the latest Privacy Guides updates and to discuss trending news in the privacy space.
During the livesteam we’ll answer viewer questions. If you have a question for us, please leave a comment in this forum thread or the YouTube chat.
Members please leave your questions for us and we will try to get them answered first during the livestream
Please be aware that by posting here your post will be displayed on the YouTube stream.
Streaming Platforms
You can join the link above when the stream starts to watch and chat in the livestream without an account.
We will also be streaming from the following platforms:
It would be nice to have PG hosts speak about this news story in the stream to spread awareness. The level of apathy and lack of awareness in the US privacy wise is scary.
Maybe some day we will be able to reach some people but most of the normies won’t even hear about this community unfortunately, too busy with their life.
This is why I put “normie” in quotes
it is generally the shortest way honestly to reffer to your average joe/john smith ngl
edit: it is in dictionaries/wiki under slang category (normie - definition and meaning, Normie (slang) - Wikipedia ), I wouldn’t call the word derogatory still as it again, is the shortest way to refer to your normal, average, joe or john smith. I think like any word you just have to use it appropriately
I feel that a semantic discussion of “normie” is off-topic for this thread, so I apologize in advance, but as it’s a pervasive discussion on this forum, I just want to point out that your own Wikipedia link states that:
A normie is a person who has no distinctive personality traits, who adheres to generally accepted, mainstream views, interests, tastes and habits. He usually leads a sedentary lifestyle, is not interested in or well-informed on political and cultural issues, and does not belong to any community. Normies may be despised by members of the counterculture, who consider themselves outcasts, whose habits and interests are not generally accepted. The views of normies do not contradict the majority opinion, and their hobbies and interests are understandable to society.
And, more succinctly:
The term has an offensive connotation and is often used ironically.
So I wouldn’t be so quick to simply dismiss it as a neutral shorthand, even if some would like to use it as such. Just FYI.
yes it can be used in deragatory context but it can also be used in proper context like what more or less @kissu tried to make it with and as they said they dont mean to offend anyone and they only wanted to refer your “average person”. I dont necessarily agree that a word shouldn’t be used when it has the right meaning but I also am against using it in a deragatory of offensive way.
And this is exactly why I told kissu, add a quote when it feels appropriate so that it doesnt sound like that
It seems to be ever-changing and geographically dependent (i.e. the UK). I certainly don’t know where to look for a comprehensive list, especially since it can vary with some sites. If you are forced to use LinkedIn, for example, but you’ve had the account for 10 years and have 20 years of work history you keep adding to it, they don’t seem to want a face scan. For new accounts, maybe they do.
Do you think Discord is testing the waters for ID verification? Discord is a very popular and widely used real-time communication app (although not as big as WhatsApp), and ID verification is one of the most contentious topics to date. For anyone at Discord Inc. with any decision-making power to decide that they should combine the two seems insane to me.
Do you think this will affect Discord’s user base in any significant way? I imagine that a lot of people will leave Discord as a result of this, but I can’t decide if it will be a proportionately large amount or a proportionately small amount. If it’s a proportionately large amount, do you think Discord will reverse ID verification?
Being a very popular app, do you think any other apps will follow in Discord’s footsteps?
A lot of justification for implementing ID verification is child/teen safety. Roblox has implemented it for this purpose[1] and Discord claims to be doing it for the same reason as well. I agree that both apps, Roblox and Discord, are breeding grounds for many unsafe interactions for children, and I don’t think simply proclaiming that parents ought to be better parents will do anything logistically. There will always be parents who don’t watch their children enough. Some will always fall through the cracks. But how do I square this with the fact that I am a privacy advocate who is vehemently against ID verification? I think societal safety nets are good (both governmental and private), but I also think ID verification for something like a messaging app is appalling to individual privacy.
Unrelated questions to the topic:
For Jonah if they are on the stream: As someone who lives in Minnesota and has a presumably average threat model with respect to the government, did you find yourself needing to increase your threat model after the ICE incidents?
Time and time again have data brokers and corporations been used as a loophole by law enforcement to gain access to personal data.[2][3][4][5]Do you think this is a violation of fourth amendment rights? If so, to what extent? If not, why not? I believe personal data of all sorts can and should be considered “papers” as used in the fourth amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . .” It would be nice if you guys could invite a lawyer or even an attorney on the show to express all the possible views on this and how to best argue for the pro-privacy side. This is a short notice since the stream is tomorrow, but it’s something I’d like to tune in to some time in the future.
), do we have an exhaustive list somewhere?