Skip to main content


Ways to convince people to take online privacy seriously - common objections debunked


Our latest blog post is aimed at people who 'get it' about online privacy, but who struggle to convince friends and family to take it seriously. We hope it helps!
in reply to Célia

it felt regurgitate to me, but probably because i tried most of these arguments in the past and they all failed to convince anyone.
in reply to eldavi

I cannot change the world, I am but one man. I can only try to influence and guide those around me. They influence and guide others around them. So you pick up a few new converts and that may seem pointless until you realize the global impact of your actions.
in reply to Paddy66

Fuck billions who richest they are clowns. Thank you for shared information!
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Paddy66

"They've already got my data"
From our site: rebeltechalliance.org/gotmydat…

The main retort to this is

"No they don't - they need to continually replenish their profile on you for it to be useful. If you cut off the supply now, then their power fades."
That's why their data harvesting is so aggressive. It needs to be, otherwise their promise to advertisers of being able to predict what you'll want, and when you'll want it, cannot be fulfilled.

You just need to step off the playing field and their game comes grinding to a halt!


I already "get it" and I don't find this argument too convincing.

If you're 25 years old and cut them off, they still have :
- your data from the last 24 years
- the data of everyone in your demographic
- the data of your family, friends, and coworkers

(Yes, I get that it's different if everyone cuts off data harvesting at the same time, but this is about convincing one person.)

in reply to kindred

Even if its one person, you would have to start somewhere. Maybe they have your data from the last 24 years, as per your example. If you cut off now, five years later, they still have only 24 years of your data. They won't have the last five year's data, which would be crucial for them.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to calmblue75

That doesn't address the other two bullet points.

It's like tracking an animal moving in tall grass. You don't need to be able to see the animal directly to tell where it is.

If I can't disappear completely, there's enough data points around me that a useful silhouette can be reconstructed from all the surrounding data.

What's the point?

in reply to kindred

The article addresses this. Data must be fresh to be valuable. Yes old data can be useful, but can it be sold? That’s the main vulnerability to surveillance capitalism that hiding exploits.
in reply to kindred

The point is that by fighting back they cannot get any more accurate than that, which helps, even if it's incomplete and imperfect.

There's also the spite angle, because fuck them, i am not gonna give them shit if i can help it!

in reply to kindred

That is an entirely valid point - and exactly why I wrote that blog post. To help people to explain to those around them that they also need to do something about their privacy. Otherwise they're giving you away by association.

Come to think of it, I probably should have mentioned that in the post 🤦🏼‍♂️

in reply to kindred

in reply to evilcultist

This is concrete, thanks. I can work with this.

The arguments the article gives are way to broad to fly around a Thanksgiving table.

They might as well have titled it:

"Ways to convince people to take online privacy seriously (who are already on the fence and leaning so hard in your direction that a stiff breeze would do the job for you)"

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Paddy66

"But personalised ads are really convenient!"


Not seeing ads is really convenient, and I have trouble understanding why anyone wouldn't block ads aggressively on every device they spend much time using in 2025.

To cover a couple common objections:

It's a corporate/institutional device and I can't


Then it's the institution's IT department I'm puzzled by. If I was running corporate IT, ad blocking would be part of the standard install. The FBI recommends it for security.

The device is too locked down for that


Why would you buy such a device, or continue using it now that you know better?

in reply to Zak

Good points.

Similar to the other reply - I haven't moved to a privacy OS on Android yet because of money.

My fancy Samsung is not supported by those OSs (yet).

in reply to Paddy66

I haven’t moved to a privacy OS on Android yet because of money.


That's entirely reasonable. You can still block most ads if you want to:

  • You can use a web browser that supports extensions. That includes Firefox and its various forks, and perhaps surprisingly, Microsoft Edge. uBlock Origin is still available for both, despite Edge being Chromium-based and Google trying to cripple adblockers there.
  • You can use web, rather than app versions of most services so that they're covered by the browser's adblocker.
  • You can use DNS-based adblocking to reduce ads where you need/want to use apps that display ads.
in reply to Paddy66

in reply to Paddy66

Do people often tell you they like surveillance because personalised ads are useful? That's a madness
in reply to PrivacyDingus

i have been unironically told by someone who refused to install an adblocker: 'what if i might get an ad for something i want?'
in reply to onoira [they/them]

eurgh, maybe this is just the crowds I swim in then... I've only ever heard derision for ads.
in reply to PrivacyDingus

I have family that believes this and LIKE having ads, so yeah... 😓
in reply to Paddy66

Ads are needed to create incommings needed by an service, but legit are only contextual ads, but not personalized ones results of surveilance and profiling, worst if also used with tracking and metadata logging. This is the main reason why the use of adblocker and other filter measures are mandatory, sorry for those which use only contextual banners to create some incommings.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Zerush

Dude wtf are you saying?

EDIT: Most likely a bot.

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Jumbie

Also devs want to eat sometimes and for services there are few possibilities to create incommings, turning it in a paid service, put ads or using afiliate links which ay an revenue if the user use these. A no go are selling private user data which are the methodes of big corporations, this is the real problem. But it isn't avoidable, when you block these that also those which use ethical methodes are affected. The solution is only a clear legislation making it illegal to sell private user data to third parties, out of control how these use or protect these. There isn't any other. Privacy is a basic right, period. Traffiking with user and metadata is a crime.
in reply to Paddy66

Been using uBlock for what feels like 15 years now. I find it weird and off putting when using other people's PCs without it. So many ads and so much garbage everywhere. Same when I watch network TV.
in reply to FriendBesto

Totally! When you see someone else's phone or laptop and you're like "ew!"