3 ms·

The most worrying part is that no one saw anything wrong with this. The data must have crossed the marketing and analytics department, and no one even stopped t

The most worrying part is that no one saw anything wrong with this. The data must have crossed the marketing and analytics department, and no one even stopped to consider what they're doing. And either they have no process for approval to release such statistics, or no one there saw anything wrong, either. One could make a snarky comment asking if these people ever get out of their filter bubble, but that's the general issue here, isn't it? The people developing, designing and running many of todays services have entirely different values and views on privatsphere compared to the rest of society.

simonswords82 9y ago
That's because there isn't anything wrong with this. It's anonymous, it's completely untraceable back to the 53 people. If this is seriously something people have time to freak out about, they have too much spare time on their hands.
- kuschku 9y ago
  People hate surveillance. They accept it as trade off, but you shouldn't remind them of it. And I'd even say that even collecting this data is wrong.
  - simonswords82 9y ago
    I'm sure it's more a of case of needing the data for business purposes (such as paying copyright holders) than a matter of "surveillance".
    - kuschku 9y ago
      That's the same, though. Surveillance is only defined by collecting the data — not necessarily by how you use it. But the data still exists, and as in this case, can still be used. And apparently, Netflix rules on how to access or use it aren't particularly strict either.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    > I'd even say that even collecting this data is wrong Without this data they can't tell what's worth making and what's not worth making.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      And yet TV shows got made before the pervasive surveillance age. I'm not particularly aghast that they keep this data, but I can't agree that they need it.
LyndsySimon 9y ago
I'm not even convinced it's a real statistic. It's just a snarky post on social media.

simonswords82 9y ago

That's because there isn't anything wrong with this. It's anonymous, it's completely untraceable back to the 53 people. If this is seriously something people have time to freak out about, they have too much spare time on their hands.

kuschku 9y ago
People hate surveillance. They accept it as trade off, but you shouldn't remind them of it. And I'd even say that even collecting this data is wrong.
- simonswords82 9y ago
  I'm sure it's more a of case of needing the data for business purposes (such as paying copyright holders) than a matter of "surveillance".
  - kuschku 9y ago
    That's the same, though. Surveillance is only defined by collecting the data — not necessarily by how you use it. But the data still exists, and as in this case, can still be used. And apparently, Netflix rules on how to access or use it aren't particularly strict either.
- mcphage 9y ago
  > I'd even say that even collecting this data is wrong Without this data they can't tell what's worth making and what's not worth making.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    And yet TV shows got made before the pervasive surveillance age. I'm not particularly aghast that they keep this data, but I can't agree that they need it.

LyndsySimon 9y ago

I'm not even convinced it's a real statistic. It's just a snarky post on social media.