@strypey Apparently you’re trying not to judge Weinberg’s action in 2003 by today’s standards.
Your perception is perhaps a bit like the controversial question of whether the British gov should apologize for chemically castrating Alan Turing. Of course by today’s social standards, people are rattled to the core by how Turing was treated in that despicable shit-show history. But some take the stance that it’s unfair to judge historic actions by today’s social standards because today’s social wisdom simply did not exist then, and you cannot expect historic actions to have a vision of future social norms.
However, Weinberg was a scumbag in 2003 /even by the social standards of that time/. I remember 2003. I remember as social networks emerged many were instantly known to be exploitive & abusive even by the wisdom of that time. Myself and others with a sense of privacy appreciation were already fighting privacy abuses.
So Weinberg is not off the hook. But more importantly, apart from the money-driven craze to exploit and extract, Weinberg inherently had no shred of respect for privacy at a time when many did. When privacy movements were underway, Weinberg did not give a shit about privacy.
The moment he pivoted to appear to embrace privacy (DDG formation), it was actually just privacy /theatre/, not privacy, that appealed to him. So many people remain fooled by Weinberg’s mastery of privacy theatre for marketing purposes. He is no champion of privacy and obviously did not have a dramatic change in values in a short span of time. And the bits of the article you skipped prove that.