That’s not quite true. There are all kinds of class signifiers that are subtle signals to in group members. High end jewelry is often quite under stated for this reason. The way you speak is also a class thing, as is a wide range of subtle social behavior.

Noticeably not having a social media account clearly is a visible behavior that could be a marker of class, as would anything else privacy related.

That's an interesting take.

Privacy, to my mind, boils down to consent. And consent - whether given or not - is a behaviorism informed by context. And individual may or may not consent based on cultural norms, values, beliefs, social cues, political, economical,... affordances and so on. Consent, on the part of the individual, becomes a trade off depending on the context.

Privacy is a social construct, and what makes it so hard to discuss is that the context defines it's interpretation. While debate tends to focus on the "right to privacy", what it actually pertains to is individual agency - or lack thereof - within specific contexts to give or deny consent.

The discussion in the article revolves around two specific hot-button takes of privacy: (a) consenting to the state knowing your whereabouts, and taking restrictive action (b) private businesses tracking consumers through digital technology to further commercial interests. And how both aspects have become intertwined with each other into complex social, economical and political issues in a globalized world.

While privacy can act as a class signifier that doesn't necessarily mean the modern, present-day interpretation of privacy as a class signifier is a permanent or universal fixture of social behavior (I don't think you implied this btw). Rather, industrialized societies specifically have adopted digital technology to a point where their normative context is heavily being reshaped, and existing and rising power structures come at odds as a result. Antonio Gramsci coined the concept of "cultural hegemony" to describe that dynamic in general terms. The discussion among sociologists, activists and political thinkers that spun out of this idea is probably more interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony

Privacy as a class signifier is an interesting theory. But it only holds value if you can tie it to identifiable elites and power structures that can leverage privacy as such. Just reading through the HN comments already shows how difficult that is in itself: just defining the scope and breadth of the concept of "privacy" proves difficult as it requires you to be aware of your own context, and be able to suspend in your mind before reframing the notion within many different social contexts in order to get a good understanding of the hidden complexities.

I think it’s more of a paradox than an oxymoron. The lack of having to maintain public social media accounts (especially a LinkedIn) may be interpreted as higher class. Poor people have to spend their time putting out content and building an “online presence” to get jobs, friends, etc, while higher class people don’t have to deal with those distractions.

>The whole point of privacy is to not signal anything to anyone.

No. The point of privacy is to signal only what I want to, and to people who I want to contact.

Looking for a privacy does not mean staying in a room, never leaving it and not communicating with external world.

I am fine with my friends and family knowing about $PRIVATE_MATTER, I am not fine with my bank/shop/government/employer knowing about it.

I think this a pedantic take on the headline. The intent behind the entire article is that privacy is a privilege for those who can afford it.