This is a strange place to end up; you make a convincing argument against the somewhat unsophisticated and very common capstone of digital privacy. But if you really want to be private online, there are always ways, if not existent, possible, and if not possible, likely being worked on or a product of some future innovation. We end up at the “well you can’t stop it anyways,” point.
Do we only then use digital services to spy on those not savvy enough or careful enough to be private? What if everyone achieves Signal level privacy, or better? We end up having to answer the same question as before: what other methods are possible.
What if everyone achieves Signal level privacy, or better?
They get banned of it eventually, exactly the reason why this thread exists (telegram evaluates an idea of staying in Germany by relaxing some privacy rules, remember? It’s not their decision, but Germany’s). When reality changes, so do rules, they are not set in “capstone”. A couple of demolished buildings and the general public starts asking: why do we have so much of <whatever comes to mind> when it’s clearly dangerous.
Do we only then use digital services to spy on those not savvy enough or careful enough to be private? What if everyone achieves Signal level privacy, or better? We end up having to answer the same question as before: what other methods are possible.