9 ms·

So nobody can "give the power back" to anybody, but people can stop giving their power away to others. We all have power, and we manifest it through our actions

So nobody can "give the power back" to anybody, but people can stop giving their power away to others. We all have power, and we manifest it through our actions and choices. Some say knowledge is power, but in order to gain knowledge you have to make that choice. One can try to educate people about the benefits of hosting their own data, but unless they make the choice to listen and understand it's all for nothing. I tend to agree with others that posted here, that in general, people are just not interested. It may be too hard for them to grasp the real implications of giving all those informations about them to third parties.. They may also consider that it's too hard to handle all those problems by themselves so they're willing to pay the prices... I don't think that the change can happen unless the people who do understand, do something about it, but usually these people are more interested to cash in on the ignorance of those who don't...

benevol 10y ago
> but unless they make the choice to listen and understand it's all for nothing And when do we usually listen? When we feel the pain. Which is why we'll probably have to feel the pain of authoritarian governments in the near future, to gain enough understanding, before we can make that transition to a better humanity. I just hope this painful transition won't take too long.
dsacco 10y ago
>>I tend to agree with others that posted here, that in general, people are just not interested. It may be too hard for them to grasp the real implications of giving all those informations about them to third parties.. They may also consider that it's too hard to handle all those problems by themselves so they're willing to pay the prices... It's true that many users who give away their data are not cognizant of the consequences, and there are others who understand but do it reluctantly because of peer pressure or usability. But there's a huge swath of people who fully understand the privacy implications of giving away all their data in exchange for the products they use daily, and they're perfectly happy with the deal. They're not as vocal as the zeitgeist here on HN, and they're not irrational, naive or helpless; they just have a different set of values. I agree with you that people who care deeply about this issue have the power to change it through focused, collective effort (even if that means supporting open alternatives, like DuckDuckGo). However, I disagree with your characterization of people who willingly support this as being predominantly exploitive.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  But we're not talking about them. We're talking about the millions of people who don't want that deal, or wouldn't if they thought about it, but are currently being forced into it by network effects and lack of existing viable alternatives.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    I'm talking about them because I disagree with the ideological sentiment that they are not a significant portion (perhaps majority) of the population. How did you quantify the "millions of people" who you claim are ignorant or unwillingly forced into it? It's easy for people to misunderstand others' values as being based on misconceptions and assume they are either ignorant or malicious. Members of identity groups (i.e. everyone) tend to, in the aggregate, treat their beliefs as positive statements, not normative ones. Bringing this back to the subject at hand - the point I'm making is relevant because I would postulate that most people make this deal while being reasonably cognizant of the consequences, and simply being okay with it. They don't need to understand how the data is used at a deeply technical level to understand that it can be used in ways that reduce their overall privacy. I know many non-technical people who can demonstrate an awareness of the way their data is used to impact their privacy in tech products, and they're okay with it. I even know many technical folks who use the typical banter about the NSA, government surveillance and corporate privacy indiscretions ironically, and don't actually care. They just think it's humorous.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      You're making the argument from apathy. Sure, there are a ton of people who don't care. But what interest of theirs are you defending? "Don't care either way" is not an objection to change. Ambivalence about privacy is not the same as a preference to give it up.
      - dsacco 10y ago
        I'm defending the idea that they are disinterested in change not because they are ignorant, but because they are fully aware and accepting of what they're giving up. I am not arguing that they don't care either way. If they otherwise don't care, but they appreciate the usability and convenience features of these products, then that is an objection to change if they won't get the same features in more open, private alternatives. My second point is this: if enough people can be described as both aware and accepting, then mainstream change will not occur because people like what they have more than they like their privacy, and they make that decision in an informed and responsible manner that does not provide a market opportunity. You can make an alternative, and it can be great (e.g. DuckDuckGo), but it will not be mainstream.
cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
The "People don't understand" is a condescending statement and is exactly the reason why the people who try to build these decentralized systems never succeed, because they don't even understand why people use information silos. If you really think that's the problem and you think you know better than other people, you should quit using every single centralized system out there, like your bank (they take your money and invest it elsewhere! And most people don't even know about it!), credit card (It's just a small piece of plastic but you have to pay them money just to pay money, and they even track your purchase history, how ridiculous is that!), etc. Sure there are shitty aspects to this (and I don't like it either), but the reason they are still around is NOT because most people don't know, but because most people have better things to worry about. I know EXACTLY what's going on but still use centralized silos for certain things because it makes sense at the moment, even though there are many downsides. It is these "decentralized" people who are out of touch, not the ordinary people.
- JohnStrange 10y ago
  Or maybe both of you are on the opposite sides of a false dichotomy. Just sayin'...
  - walterbell 10y ago
    Yes. E.g. centralized Snapchat has a multi-billion market value based on marketing of ephemeral messaging and a fun UX. Despite technical limitations of the marketing claims, they have reduced the audience for their "historical conversations" from "all customers" to "malicious actors", which is a big step forward.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Snapchat created a multi-billion dollar market via centralized tech and money taken in on the promise they'll monetize it (or the data under EULA) somehow while giving app away for free and operating in a pseudo-police state. I was hesitant to think anything good would come of that after the main SMS and Facebook alternative I pushed for mass audience, WhatApp, was acquired by Facebook in one of largest acquisitions in history. (sighs) Also, WhatApp was losing incredible amount of money with its number of users despite using efficient, centralized tech. I bet they'd loose even more if people were mostly sending images. I've been thinking secure, decentralized apps with no advertising or acquisition will cost money to develop that will require paying users. Or some clever freemium model. Also, not in a police state. ;)
icantdrive55 10y ago
I believe it's governments duty to protect its citizens from dangers they don't understand. It's the governments function to educate its citizens. It's there function to warn people when a hurricane shows up on radar. It's ther function to protect its citizenery. Why can't they protect us from Google, and Facebook dat collection? I believe collecting data on people is a Danger. I believe we need to introduce a bill to limit the amount of data any company can keep on any citizen of the United States. The bill would be simple. No company could track a person in any fashion, without a court warrant. Companies/entities could only keep a name, email, and password. They might be able to keep IP address, but only for security verification. They couldn't track. The bill would have to worded just right. And yes, Google/Bing will fight. They will hang out at the White House more than they currently do now. They will scream, "But who will we track the flu?" "But we need -----". We need privacy while online--Now!
inopinatus 10y ago
We're all choosing centralised silos despite having personal preferences otherwise. This is a systems outcome, and not one we'll change individually. A distributed social network may arise, we just haven't yet seen the initial conditions, value chains, and systems structures that will bring it about. This article gets excited about blockchain cryptocurrencies as the substrate, since money is a ubiquitous need. Well, it's worth pursuing. I'm still angry with Google & Facebook for killing off federated chat, which was the other nebula in which a new star protocol might've been born.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
You are underestimating the power of external influences. It's not just about what individuals decide for themselves. Because right now, even if you decide to learn what it takes to have your decentralised internet back, that still may not be enough. We still don't have an easy to use computer that can run 24/7 in your own home, on which you can install a blog, vlog, social stuff, email, as easily as you use the current centralised services. When I first installed my mail server, it took me a week. I'm not a system administrator, but I am a developer familiar with GNU/Linux. Your average muggle doesn't stand a chance. Even if we had those little computers, our bandwidth is still asymmetric (even the fibre, even though it makes no technical sense) and that decision is a corporate one, that you are not going to reverse by voting with your wallet. Even if we had our symmetric bandwidth, we still cannot send emails from our own home. I mean we could send it, but it would be rejected by every big players out there, as well as most mail filtering systems, because the current assumption is that if it comes from a residential IP, it's spam. And we still don't know how to make a decentralised search engine. --- The choice these days is simple: either you give up on the likes of privacy and anonymity, or you shut yourself from the network. It's not a binary choice —more like a spectrum in fact— but there is no third alternative yet. For instance, I don't use Facebook. I missed some events because of that, and people are surprised I didn't know about that party I was invited in. It's the fifth time I told them I never log in, dammit!
- johnny22 10y ago
  and then there's still the data caps :(
  - palunon 10y ago
    Not if you live in a developed country... ;)
chris123 10y ago
And that brings the circle back 'round to where it started (again). SIDE (but related) NOTE:Check out the book "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus."
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kordless 10y ago
You know, I've come to the same conclusion from a different direction. I decided that people's expectations frequently exceed the cost of fulfilling those expectations because they spend a lot of time speaking for others. All of this stuff we're doing right now is non-scalable when it comes to implementing everyone's different privacy concerns at scale in a centralized solution. We simply can't scale infrastructure at the speed the public expects, while at the same time throwing away privacy rights it would take them half a lifetime to understand.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
otakucode 10y ago
I expect eventually that with the rising tide of machine learning solutions being developed, someone will figure out that the chunky coarse-grained predictions and latency-filled transactions between user and server is monumentally inferior to a segmented approach which leaves the vast majority of user preference information on the clientside and which performs last-step filtering on the client device. No company can afford to throw the equivalent of a smartphone in processing power (plus what is necessary to make up for the latency) at each and every single users query, so purely server-side solutions will always be worse. Some day, someone will deploy a hybrid and it'll be faster and slicker than anything the companies desperately pimping their customers personal data can manage. And they'll sell it as a 99 cent app, not a subscription service or an indentured servitude "free" contract. And then, maybe things will change a little.

benevol 10y ago

> but unless they make the choice to listen and understand it's all for nothing And when do we usually listen? When we feel the pain. Which is why we'll probably have to feel the pain of authoritarian governments in the near future, to gain enough understanding, before we can make that transition to a better humanity. I just hope this painful transition won't take too long.

dsacco 10y ago

>>I tend to agree with others that posted here, that in general, people are just not interested. It may be too hard for them to grasp the real implications of giving all those informations about them to third parties.. They may also consider that it's too hard to handle all those problems by themselves so they're willing to pay the prices... It's true that many users who give away their data are not cognizant of the consequences, and there are others who understand but do it reluctantly because of peer pressure or usability. But there's a huge swath of people who fully understand the privacy implications of giving away all their data in exchange for the products they use daily, and they're perfectly happy with the deal. They're not as vocal as the zeitgeist here on HN, and they're not irrational, naive or helpless; they just have a different set of values. I agree with you that people who care deeply about this issue have the power to change it through focused, collective effort (even if that means supporting open alternatives, like DuckDuckGo). However, I disagree with your characterization of people who willingly support this as being predominantly exploitive.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
But we're not talking about them. We're talking about the millions of people who don't want that deal, or wouldn't if they thought about it, but are currently being forced into it by network effects and lack of existing viable alternatives.
- dsacco 10y ago
  I'm talking about them because I disagree with the ideological sentiment that they are not a significant portion (perhaps majority) of the population. How did you quantify the "millions of people" who you claim are ignorant or unwillingly forced into it? It's easy for people to misunderstand others' values as being based on misconceptions and assume they are either ignorant or malicious. Members of identity groups (i.e. everyone) tend to, in the aggregate, treat their beliefs as positive statements, not normative ones. Bringing this back to the subject at hand - the point I'm making is relevant because I would postulate that most people make this deal while being reasonably cognizant of the consequences, and simply being okay with it. They don't need to understand how the data is used at a deeply technical level to understand that it can be used in ways that reduce their overall privacy. I know many non-technical people who can demonstrate an awareness of the way their data is used to impact their privacy in tech products, and they're okay with it. I even know many technical folks who use the typical banter about the NSA, government surveillance and corporate privacy indiscretions ironically, and don't actually care. They just think it's humorous.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    You're making the argument from apathy. Sure, there are a ton of people who don't care. But what interest of theirs are you defending? "Don't care either way" is not an objection to change. Ambivalence about privacy is not the same as a preference to give it up.
    - dsacco 10y ago
      I'm defending the idea that they are disinterested in change not because they are ignorant, but because they are fully aware and accepting of what they're giving up. I am not arguing that they don't care either way. If they otherwise don't care, but they appreciate the usability and convenience features of these products, then that is an objection to change if they won't get the same features in more open, private alternatives. My second point is this: if enough people can be described as both aware and accepting, then mainstream change will not occur because people like what they have more than they like their privacy, and they make that decision in an informed and responsible manner that does not provide a market opportunity. You can make an alternative, and it can be great (e.g. DuckDuckGo), but it will not be mainstream.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago

The "People don't understand" is a condescending statement and is exactly the reason why the people who try to build these decentralized systems never succeed, because they don't even understand why people use information silos. If you really think that's the problem and you think you know better than other people, you should quit using every single centralized system out there, like your bank (they take your money and invest it elsewhere! And most people don't even know about it!), credit card (It's just a small piece of plastic but you have to pay them money just to pay money, and they even track your purchase history, how ridiculous is that!), etc. Sure there are shitty aspects to this (and I don't like it either), but the reason they are still around is NOT because most people don't know, but because most people have better things to worry about. I know EXACTLY what's going on but still use centralized silos for certain things because it makes sense at the moment, even though there are many downsides. It is these "decentralized" people who are out of touch, not the ordinary people.

JohnStrange 10y ago
Or maybe both of you are on the opposite sides of a false dichotomy. Just sayin'...
- walterbell 10y ago
  Yes. E.g. centralized Snapchat has a multi-billion market value based on marketing of ephemeral messaging and a fun UX. Despite technical limitations of the marketing claims, they have reduced the audience for their "historical conversations" from "all customers" to "malicious actors", which is a big step forward.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Snapchat created a multi-billion dollar market via centralized tech and money taken in on the promise they'll monetize it (or the data under EULA) somehow while giving app away for free and operating in a pseudo-police state. I was hesitant to think anything good would come of that after the main SMS and Facebook alternative I pushed for mass audience, WhatApp, was acquired by Facebook in one of largest acquisitions in history. (sighs) Also, WhatApp was losing incredible amount of money with its number of users despite using efficient, centralized tech. I bet they'd loose even more if people were mostly sending images. I've been thinking secure, decentralized apps with no advertising or acquisition will cost money to develop that will require paying users. Or some clever freemium model. Also, not in a police state. ;)

icantdrive55 10y ago

I believe it's governments duty to protect its citizens from dangers they don't understand. It's the governments function to educate its citizens. It's there function to warn people when a hurricane shows up on radar. It's ther function to protect its citizenery. Why can't they protect us from Google, and Facebook dat collection? I believe collecting data on people is a Danger. I believe we need to introduce a bill to limit the amount of data any company can keep on any citizen of the United States. The bill would be simple. No company could track a person in any fashion, without a court warrant. Companies/entities could only keep a name, email, and password. They might be able to keep IP address, but only for security verification. They couldn't track. The bill would have to worded just right. And yes, Google/Bing will fight. They will hang out at the White House more than they currently do now. They will scream, "But who will we track the flu?" "But we need -----". We need privacy while online--Now!

inopinatus 10y ago

We're all choosing centralised silos despite having personal preferences otherwise. This is a systems outcome, and not one we'll change individually. A distributed social network may arise, we just haven't yet seen the initial conditions, value chains, and systems structures that will bring it about. This article gets excited about blockchain cryptocurrencies as the substrate, since money is a ubiquitous need. Well, it's worth pursuing. I'm still angry with Google & Facebook for killing off federated chat, which was the other nebula in which a new star protocol might've been born.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

You are underestimating the power of external influences. It's not just about what individuals decide for themselves. Because right now, even if you decide to learn what it takes to have your decentralised internet back, that still may not be enough. We still don't have an easy to use computer that can run 24/7 in your own home, on which you can install a blog, vlog, social stuff, email, as easily as you use the current centralised services. When I first installed my mail server, it took me a week. I'm not a system administrator, but I am a developer familiar with GNU/Linux. Your average muggle doesn't stand a chance. Even if we had those little computers, our bandwidth is still asymmetric (even the fibre, even though it makes no technical sense) and that decision is a corporate one, that you are not going to reverse by voting with your wallet. Even if we had our symmetric bandwidth, we still cannot send emails from our own home. I mean we could send it, but it would be rejected by every big players out there, as well as most mail filtering systems, because the current assumption is that if it comes from a residential IP, it's spam. And we still don't know how to make a decentralised search engine. --- The choice these days is simple: either you give up on the likes of privacy and anonymity, or you shut yourself from the network. It's not a binary choice —more like a spectrum in fact— but there is no third alternative yet. For instance, I don't use Facebook. I missed some events because of that, and people are surprised I didn't know about that party I was invited in. It's the fifth time I told them I never log in, dammit!

johnny22 10y ago
and then there's still the data caps :(
- palunon 10y ago
  Not if you live in a developed country... ;)

chris123 10y ago

And that brings the circle back 'round to where it started (again). SIDE (but related) NOTE:Check out the book "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus."

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kordless 10y ago

You know, I've come to the same conclusion from a different direction. I decided that people's expectations frequently exceed the cost of fulfilling those expectations because they spend a lot of time speaking for others. All of this stuff we're doing right now is non-scalable when it comes to implementing everyone's different privacy concerns at scale in a centralized solution. We simply can't scale infrastructure at the speed the public expects, while at the same time throwing away privacy rights it would take them half a lifetime to understand.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

otakucode 10y ago

I expect eventually that with the rising tide of machine learning solutions being developed, someone will figure out that the chunky coarse-grained predictions and latency-filled transactions between user and server is monumentally inferior to a segmented approach which leaves the vast majority of user preference information on the clientside and which performs last-step filtering on the client device. No company can afford to throw the equivalent of a smartphone in processing power (plus what is necessary to make up for the latency) at each and every single users query, so purely server-side solutions will always be worse. Some day, someone will deploy a hybrid and it'll be faster and slicker than anything the companies desperately pimping their customers personal data can manage. And they'll sell it as a 99 cent app, not a subscription service or an indentured servitude "free" contract. And then, maybe things will change a little.