Why do you think that?
> If privacy is such a problem for some it is not a technological problem, it is a political problem.
Why do you think that?
> If so, people concerned should make their revolution in an appropriate place: the real world, and let internet stay a public media.
The internet is the real world.
Also, who wants to make the internet a non-public media?
And since Internet is globally like a very fast Gutenberg press, it has the same property as printed paper: privacy is not a problem of the media, but of the institutions/organizations trying to control it. It is controled by law or force. Law/force comes from/is backed by government, so if you don't have privacy then complain to your government for his actions (or lack of).
Sum up: privacy is not an internet problem (media). It is a problem between the citizens and their governments (use of media).
Had you opened a good history book you should know it. And also in the same books you should discover that the concern for privacy has already existed before internet : the more governments are authoritative the more they both tend to love secrecy for themselves and hate public debate for the others and want to control media.
Control of media by the government do not always align with the public's best interests. DMCA, patents, IP laws, "censorship for the protection of the kids" ? Does it ring a bell? Google who wants you to read only sites that have nice ads so they filter out as non relevant some information.
Want to overthrow your government in the shadow? commit a crime? Sext your gf? I don't care about these usage and consider them accessory. They divert people from real problems like accessing the information vehicled by the media.
By the way, they make very nice tinfoil hats nowadays. There are successful crowdfundings for it.
Ho, and internet is the real world? Ah ah ah.
As much as "war and peace" is the real world.
I still disagree with you, though. Yes, of course, technology alone cannot solve the political problems. But I very much think that technology can play a role in implementing and securing the political will. If you think of a democratic voting process as a piece of technology, for example, that by itself won't make a dictator go away. However, if there is a general consensus that democracy is the way to go, the specific implementation of the voting process very much makes a difference as to whether rogue actors can subvert this political will or not. If you make it so that votes cannot be bought and that the general public can watch the election from start to finish, that makes a democracy robust against a minority of people who try to rig the vote, for example.
I think information technology has a similar role to play in securing privacy. You can build systems that are far more robust against surveillance than facebook, for example. That doesn't help if the police comes after you for not using facebook--but it might prevent Mark Zuckerberg from figuring out how to manipulate the masses to vote for him as the next president ... or whatever he considers his interest ;-)
Also, I think the internet is actually a pretty good basis for that. In contrast to previous networks, at its basis, it doesn't distinguish between clients and servers, and it is a mostly transparent network with all the intelligence at the edge, so it's technically relatively easy to build your own protocols and applications without approval from network operators.
As for the internet being the real world: Yes, I get where you are coming from, but I think the distinction in this way is still counterproductive, as it supports a narrative that is used by the other side that implies that somehow the internet is special and that therefore human rights don't apply, and that special (and usually more restrictive) laws are necessary, as if laws that forbid fraud, say, for some reason didn't already apply if the fraud was committed via the internet.
Internet is expensive, exclusive, not efficient, not securable. It is the wrong tool for privacy. I have taken part in building it.
Ideas main vector is words and language and their meaning not the paper on which it is written. Education change the world. Because with or without internet, words get exchanged by humans. All e-learning attempt without someone to mentor have failed.
Getting in touch with people is working best where they actually live (at my experience). Internet is a very updated map, not a territory, and it has blind spots.
And democracy is not about voting. It is not a system, it is a property that should ideally apply to a system.
A monarchy, a dictatorship, a republic can be democratic, the same way that any geometrical figure can be concave or convex. It is just a property that "the people"'s interest caged (oops born by luck randomly citizen of a place) in a nation are being "fairly" re-presentend.
Native americans not being representented by their government on their traditional land (or palestinians in israel, corsican & muslims in france, scotts in UK, ouigour in china, flamish/wallon in belgian) is it fair?
Well, I don't know. Fairness at my opinion is a non achievable goal but a never ending unknown path.
Internet has a lot of answers, but very few interesting questions being asked.