Summary of “Open, Closed, and Privacy – Stratechery by Ben Thompson”

The ongoing debate about data and privacy is directly related to the question of encryption in some important ways, as Mossberg’s tweet notes: messaging content is data that users would like to keep private, and encryption accomplishes that.
That gets at the more important way that the relationship between open/closed and encryption is relevant to data and privacy: just as encryption at scale is only possible with a closed service, so it is with privacy.
Just as a closed garden makes the user experience challenge of encryption manageable, so does the centralization of data make privacy – of a certain sort – a viable business model.
One does wonder how much that allegation drives the outrage about the fact that Facebook shared that data to begin with, but leaving that aside, what is noteworthy is that the outrage stems from the sharing of the data, not its collection.
The implication is quite far-reaching: being open, at least to the extent that openness involved user data of any sort, is increasingly unacceptable; that new companies and user benefits might result from that data no longer matters, a fate that all-too-often befalls the not-yet-created.
Most of their competitors for digital advertising, on the other hand, are modular: some companies collect data, and other collect ads; such a model, in a society demanding ever more privacy, will be increasingly untenable.
Brussels wants its new General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, to stop tech giants and their partners from pressuring consumers to relinquish control of their data in exchange for services.
Specifically, if an emphasis on privacy and the non-leakage of data is a priority, it follows that the platforms that already exist will be increasingly entrenched.

The orginal article.