6 ms·

This is a conversation I have occasionally had with non tech friends. I'm sorry, you are the one being hyperbolic. It's like you haven't even noticed what's bee

This is a conversation I have occasionally had with non tech friends. I'm sorry, you are the one being hyperbolic. It's like you haven't even noticed what's been happening the last 10 years or so. > You get those free, truly amazing services lol. Services that exist without an honest portrayal about what they do with the data they gather, or anything like clarity on the extent of what is possible. Not content with that, they bend the service to better manipulate us not to provide a better service. Facebook run fun psychological experiments to see if they can manipulate their users - without calling for volunteers first or anything I recognise as ethics. How many times have FB been pulled up for being, cough, "less than honest"? Google, especially, have built a reputation for simply gathering maximum possible data, then shuttering the product 18 months later. There is no reason a company Google's size need close Reader or Picasa or any number of others. Buy their in-home device or use G Drive? Hell no, i don't trust them to provide any availability once the data grab is complete. Sure if the company is entering leaner times you can understand canning some of their services, right now it's no more than a rounding error. So no, I'm in no rush to use any new Google offering - they don't exist long enough. I think as it currently stands (collect data on me, lie to me, track me around the web as far as technically possible, track me off the service as far as technically possible, track me offline as far as possible, sell retargeting and other dubious tactics to ensure my life is 101% a buying consumer experience with no time off. In return I get a service that doesn't even meet the core need any more thanks to engagement algorithms bending it to meet FB and Google need not users') is a pretty terrifying deal. Terrifying because we still think it's an honest exchange akin to swapping £1 for a bar of chocolate in a shop, just swap data for service. We still feel it's a fair exchange. Yeah, without honesty of even 10% of what is being done. I'd actually like the sort of exchange you imply. Give me a great service in exchange for some data. Actually, yes, that seems fair so long as you use it reasonably. Hoovering up everything, with the Hoover turned up to 11, whilst implying "it's just a bit of data" is a confidence trick on the non-technical.

sh33mp 9y ago
>Facebook run fun psychological experiments to see if they can manipulate their users - without calling for volunteers first or anything I recognise as ethics. I've always wondered: How is that different from A/B testing, or any other marketing experiment?
- falcolas 9y ago
  Two things: - They weren't experimenting or measuring ads, clickthroughs, or pageviews views; they were experimenting on and measuring emotions directly - It was run as a psychological study, and published as a psychological study
  - orangecat 9y ago
    they were experimenting on and measuring emotions directly Every change to an interface can potentially affect the emotions of users, whether or not you try to measure it.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      I won't disagree with your statement, but there's a very large difference between intentionally changing a user's mood by modifying their news feed vs. indirectly and unintentionally affecting a users mood via an interface change.
    - 908087 9y ago
      Except in that experiment Facebook was intentionally trying to manipulate users' emotional states.
dsacco 9y ago
> This is a conversation I have occasionally had with non tech friends. I'm sorry, you are the one being hyperbolic. It's like you haven't even noticed what's been happening the last 10 years or so. In my opinion, you're mistaking apathy for ignorance. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the exchange is fair. I work in tech, have heard everything you just wrote many times, and my response is continually, "Eh, I'm okay with that." People I've spoken to about this outside of tech often don't know about the data collection to quite the extent you're talking about and don't care about it. When I mention how extensive the data collection is, they're often surprised, but often they still don't care. The most I've personally seen is a vague discomfort that didn't seem to persist, given the person's behavior didn't change at all. It gets kind of frustrating for people like myself to hear this argument rehashed over and over in the way you've just presented it, as though people who are okay with their data being used simply "don't understand" or haven't been paying attention. Everything you wrote is - while clearly not neutrally presented - in the zeitgeist on HN. There's nothing really new about it, and you're only convincing the people who already agree with you. Yes, we know our data is being used, we get it. We're picking up what you're putting down. Right there with you. We just don't really care. You can draw a normative conclusion about me based on that statement if you'd like. It probably sounds callous and asinine from your perspective, but like I said: reasonable people can disagree. Anecdotally speaking, most people I "enlighten" about the data hoovering you describe don't meaningfully change their behavior or preferences. Consider that when people are not aware of how their data is being used, it doesn't always mean they're being victimized; it can also mean they are vaguely aware that their data is "out there", and they implicitly don't care enough about it to investigate further. That's a valid position to take.
- oldcynic 9y ago
  > outside of tech often don't know about the data collection to quite the extent you're talking about and don't care Quite, but some of those very same people who don't care will call it creepy when they are on the receiving end of a retargeting campaign. Of course some don't care, or just find it funny. That's how I've got dragged in to those occasional conversations - typically a friend is spooked at the fact suddenly, somehow, as if by magic, the whole internet has decided they want to see ads for Gibson guitars, everywhere. Maybe they mentioned them in a FB comment a few weeks previously, or visited a review site with tracking etc. I put it to you that they don't care because they have understood the transaction as one of £1 for a bar of chocolate. I give you some photos and emails in exchange for chat and service. "Who cares if Google/FB/NSA know when I have pizza" and so forth. What they haven't (and yes, I realise I'm stretching this analogy far beyond breaking point) realised is buying that bar of chocolate results in the shop photocopying all their mail, weighing them, planting a bug to listen in to later conversations and having an employee follow them everywhere for the next few weeks - just in case they express another interest in chocolate. > discomfort that didn't seem to persist, given the person's behavior didn't change at all. I think network effect can cover most of that - continue to use Facebook because everyone they know is there, whilst having a vague perception that Facebook doesn't have their interests at heart. It's still valid for them not to care, of course, but I think a much more honest explanation from the services of the extent they track, and what they can achieve in aggregate, is called for. I think that because people are still surprised by retargeting and similar techniques, and often describe it as creepy. I'm surprised that they're still surprised, to be honest, given how long it's been going on. So clearly there is still some significant dissonance out there.

sh33mp 9y ago

>Facebook run fun psychological experiments to see if they can manipulate their users - without calling for volunteers first or anything I recognise as ethics. I've always wondered: How is that different from A/B testing, or any other marketing experiment?

falcolas 9y ago
Two things: - They weren't experimenting or measuring ads, clickthroughs, or pageviews views; they were experimenting on and measuring emotions directly - It was run as a psychological study, and published as a psychological study
- orangecat 9y ago
  they were experimenting on and measuring emotions directly Every change to an interface can potentially affect the emotions of users, whether or not you try to measure it.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    I won't disagree with your statement, but there's a very large difference between intentionally changing a user's mood by modifying their news feed vs. indirectly and unintentionally affecting a users mood via an interface change.
  - 908087 9y ago
    Except in that experiment Facebook was intentionally trying to manipulate users' emotional states.

dsacco 9y ago

> This is a conversation I have occasionally had with non tech friends. I'm sorry, you are the one being hyperbolic. It's like you haven't even noticed what's been happening the last 10 years or so. In my opinion, you're mistaking apathy for ignorance. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the exchange is fair. I work in tech, have heard everything you just wrote many times, and my response is continually, "Eh, I'm okay with that." People I've spoken to about this outside of tech often don't know about the data collection to quite the extent you're talking about and don't care about it. When I mention how extensive the data collection is, they're often surprised, but often they still don't care. The most I've personally seen is a vague discomfort that didn't seem to persist, given the person's behavior didn't change at all. It gets kind of frustrating for people like myself to hear this argument rehashed over and over in the way you've just presented it, as though people who are okay with their data being used simply "don't understand" or haven't been paying attention. Everything you wrote is - while clearly not neutrally presented - in the zeitgeist on HN. There's nothing really new about it, and you're only convincing the people who already agree with you. Yes, we know our data is being used, we get it. We're picking up what you're putting down. Right there with you. We just don't really care. You can draw a normative conclusion about me based on that statement if you'd like. It probably sounds callous and asinine from your perspective, but like I said: reasonable people can disagree. Anecdotally speaking, most people I "enlighten" about the data hoovering you describe don't meaningfully change their behavior or preferences. Consider that when people are not aware of how their data is being used, it doesn't always mean they're being victimized; it can also mean they are vaguely aware that their data is "out there", and they implicitly don't care enough about it to investigate further. That's a valid position to take.

oldcynic 9y ago
> outside of tech often don't know about the data collection to quite the extent you're talking about and don't care Quite, but some of those very same people who don't care will call it creepy when they are on the receiving end of a retargeting campaign. Of course some don't care, or just find it funny. That's how I've got dragged in to those occasional conversations - typically a friend is spooked at the fact suddenly, somehow, as if by magic, the whole internet has decided they want to see ads for Gibson guitars, everywhere. Maybe they mentioned them in a FB comment a few weeks previously, or visited a review site with tracking etc. I put it to you that they don't care because they have understood the transaction as one of £1 for a bar of chocolate. I give you some photos and emails in exchange for chat and service. "Who cares if Google/FB/NSA know when I have pizza" and so forth. What they haven't (and yes, I realise I'm stretching this analogy far beyond breaking point) realised is buying that bar of chocolate results in the shop photocopying all their mail, weighing them, planting a bug to listen in to later conversations and having an employee follow them everywhere for the next few weeks - just in case they express another interest in chocolate. > discomfort that didn't seem to persist, given the person's behavior didn't change at all. I think network effect can cover most of that - continue to use Facebook because everyone they know is there, whilst having a vague perception that Facebook doesn't have their interests at heart. It's still valid for them not to care, of course, but I think a much more honest explanation from the services of the extent they track, and what they can achieve in aggregate, is called for. I think that because people are still surprised by retargeting and similar techniques, and often describe it as creepy. I'm surprised that they're still surprised, to be honest, given how long it's been going on. So clearly there is still some significant dissonance out there.