Not sure I understand you. So for example the US public seems pretty desensitized to the US executive having constant scandals and being blatantly corrupt, and that’s basically one big important actor doing lots of clearly really bad stuff. If there’s a constant flood of private communications being leaked I’d guess people would get really desensitized to it (as well as any particular leak being drowned out by the rest of the flood). So it would get less useful as a weapon because the public wouldn’t give as much of a hoot, is what I was trying to say.
Example that maps better: people probably care less about things said by someone that aged poorly, since there’s been a huge flood of such things due to social media.
Not sure I understand you. So for example the US public seems pretty desensitized to the US executive having constant scandals and being blatantly corrupt, and that’s basically one big important actor doing lots of clearly really bad stuff. If there’s a constant flood of private communications being leaked I’d guess people would get really desensitized to it (as well as any particular leak being drowned out by the rest of the flood). So it would get less useful as a weapon because the public wouldn’t give as much of a hoot, is what I was trying to say.
Also noticing I shifted the goalposts here from “stop giving a hoot” to “wouldn’t give as much of a hoot”. I concede the original point as worded.
Example that maps better: people probably care less about things said by someone that aged poorly, since there’s been a huge flood of such things due to social media.