5 ms·

>>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 g

by 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.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        At which point you're in the minority because the set of people who affirmatively want to give up their privacy is not larger than the set who either don't want to or don't care. DuckDuckGo is not decentralized, it's just a worse Google with a better privacy policy. Actual decentralized search is hard. But this is not a one-time global binary decision. We can have decentralized YouTube and Facebook even if nobody has yet figured out how to have decentralized Google.
        eropple 10y ago
        I would suggest that having Facebook's userbase is a core part of having Facebook. If you don't have Facebook's userbase on your "decentralized Facebook", you have a strictly inferior replacement to Facebook. The set of people who care enough about the benefits (which do exist!) of decentralization is not and never going to be enough to overcome the downside of having nobody there. That's the problem you have to solve if this is something you really care about. Haranguing people because they're not using it isn't the way. The way to do it is to figure out how to make it attractive by the users' metrics rather than your own.
djsumdog 10y ago
Usability is a huge factor. I run my own website with Jekyll, but can I recommend that to someone who's not a developer. (After working with/fighting with Jekyll, I'd probably even tell other developers to just write their own). I'm currently trying to stand up some docker containers for gnusocial and paperwork. Paperwork at least has a dockerfile and docker-compose file in it. These take a lot of work. There's a huge barrier to entry.

by dsacco 10y ago

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.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      At which point you're in the minority because the set of people who affirmatively want to give up their privacy is not larger than the set who either don't want to or don't care. DuckDuckGo is not decentralized, it's just a worse Google with a better privacy policy. Actual decentralized search is hard. But this is not a one-time global binary decision. We can have decentralized YouTube and Facebook even if nobody has yet figured out how to have decentralized Google.
      - eropple 10y ago
        I would suggest that having Facebook's userbase is a core part of having Facebook. If you don't have Facebook's userbase on your "decentralized Facebook", you have a strictly inferior replacement to Facebook. The set of people who care enough about the benefits (which do exist!) of decentralization is not and never going to be enough to overcome the downside of having nobody there. That's the problem you have to solve if this is something you really care about. Haranguing people because they're not using it isn't the way. The way to do it is to figure out how to make it attractive by the users' metrics rather than your own.

djsumdog 10y ago

Usability is a huge factor. I run my own website with Jekyll, but can I recommend that to someone who's not a developer. (After working with/fighting with Jekyll, I'd probably even tell other developers to just write their own). I'm currently trying to stand up some docker containers for gnusocial and paperwork. Paperwork at least has a dockerfile and docker-compose file in it. These take a lot of work. There's a huge barrier to entry.