4 ms·

IMO you are grossily exagerating what he's saying to prove your point. He's marely saying that compared to when social media didn't exist, it was unthinkable t

IMO you are grossily exagerating what he's saying to prove your point. He's marely saying that compared to when social media didn't exist, it was unthinkable to have people exposing others to what they were doing and with whom, what they were eating and how it looked, etc. He's absolutely right. The social norm HAS changed. Now, do I think it's good to use user data like Facebook does? Well, it's a business. It might not be ethical, but are companies that sell cigarettes, alcohol, guns, etc. any better (or potentially any better)? We need to stop complaining about how evil Facebook is, and start talking about personal responsibility. People need to understand what they're doing, it's not Facebook's fault if people don't know their data will be used for advertising, like it's not a tobacco's manufacture's fault if the user doesn't know cigarettes give you cancer. You don't like how they use your data? Stop using Facebook! End of story. No one is complaining to the manufacturer about how cigarettes give you cancer demanding a safer alternative, you just smoke at your own risk. Personally, I don't smoke, and I don't use Facebook.

PaulStatezny 9y ago
> it's not Facebook's fault if people don't know their data will be used for advertising, like it's not a tobacco's manufacture's fault if the user doesn't know cigarettes give you cancer. Lawmakers (at least in the USA) disagree with you fundamentally. That’s why cigarettes have a big warning label telling consumers that it gives you cancer. I think comparing tobacco and data privacy is like comparing apples and oranges. But the common principle stands: if people might reasonably find a product objectionable because of characteristics that aren’t readily clear, a reasonable effort ought to be made to educate them.
- nkkollaw 9y ago
  Yes but then you end up having warnings on everything--like in the States. A knife is potentially dangerous, a rope is potentially dangerous, just about anything is potentially dangerous! I think it's fine to expect people have a working brain. On the internet it's not immediately clear that if you upload a naked picture or post a racist comment it will stay there _forever_, and might very easily affect you negatively _for an indefinite amount of time_ (employers can see it or do background checks, etc.), but that's just how it is.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - apazzolini 9y ago
    You argued PaulStatezny's point for him in your reply. It is "immediately clear" that a knife is dangerous, and nobody expects a warning label on that. It's not "immediately clear" however that smoking gives you cancer or what is possibly being done with your data at Facebook, and thus there should be warnings.
    - nkkollaw 9y ago
      Why would it be immediately clear that a knife is dangerous? Why is it NOT clear that the contents of a steaming cup of freshly-made coffee that somebody is handling you may be hot, then? It's NOT clear that if you marry the wrong person you can end up in lot of pain, fighting in court for 10 years, losing all you have, etc., so should the priest or government official read a warning before declaring you married? When you signed up for Facebook, you agreed to their TOS. Compared to the knife, cup, and wife someone has told you _explicitly_ what's going to happen and how, and _you have agreed to that_. What makes it unclear, then?
      - jonathanyc 9y ago
        You realize essentially the only social reason for marriages to be solemnized by a city official or a government official is because it forces people to at least slightly consider the consequences, right? Like it or not, there is not yet a similar sort of widespread awareness of the risks of Facebook. If you asked a random person on the street to explain what could go wrong with a marriage, they could give you so many examples that troubled marriages are literally one of the classic sets ups for jokes. If you asked the average person to explain how the Cambridge Analytica breach happened, or what Facebook can do with the permission to see which WiFi network you’re connected to, for example, they would not be able to give a good explanation.
fdsak 9y ago
We need to stop complaining about how evil Facebook is, and start talking about personal responsibility. I like your standing but there is one more aspect to look at e.g these companies have big data , money and can hire smart people to use that data in a way beyond our imagination.And with backdoor channels to secret agencies and govt. institutions they can manipulate public opinion, as this is the current case. Probably complaining is first step towards greater personal responsibility and to educate all the users who have no idea what is happening around them. Like in the case of tobacco, tobacco companies suppressed scientific research reaching general public through manipulation of media.
kodablah 9y ago
> We need to stop complaining about how evil Facebook is, and start talking about personal responsibility This is so true and so not gonna happen. Too often you see people lauding new regulations, new laws, new ways of telling someone else what to do because they are not smart enough to know for themselves. I wish government and their constant rule-requesting constituency would repurpose their effort into education and promotion of alternatives. > Personally, I don't smoke, and I don't use Facebook. Sadly, there will be a time where you can't do things like those, even being aware of and accepting of the risks.
- nkkollaw 9y ago
  When

PaulStatezny 9y ago

> it's not Facebook's fault if people don't know their data will be used for advertising, like it's not a tobacco's manufacture's fault if the user doesn't know cigarettes give you cancer. Lawmakers (at least in the USA) disagree with you fundamentally. That’s why cigarettes have a big warning label telling consumers that it gives you cancer. I think comparing tobacco and data privacy is like comparing apples and oranges. But the common principle stands: if people might reasonably find a product objectionable because of characteristics that aren’t readily clear, a reasonable effort ought to be made to educate them.

nkkollaw 9y ago
Yes but then you end up having warnings on everything--like in the States. A knife is potentially dangerous, a rope is potentially dangerous, just about anything is potentially dangerous! I think it's fine to expect people have a working brain. On the internet it's not immediately clear that if you upload a naked picture or post a racist comment it will stay there _forever_, and might very easily affect you negatively _for an indefinite amount of time_ (employers can see it or do background checks, etc.), but that's just how it is.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- apazzolini 9y ago
  You argued PaulStatezny's point for him in your reply. It is "immediately clear" that a knife is dangerous, and nobody expects a warning label on that. It's not "immediately clear" however that smoking gives you cancer or what is possibly being done with your data at Facebook, and thus there should be warnings.
  - nkkollaw 9y ago
    Why would it be immediately clear that a knife is dangerous? Why is it NOT clear that the contents of a steaming cup of freshly-made coffee that somebody is handling you may be hot, then? It's NOT clear that if you marry the wrong person you can end up in lot of pain, fighting in court for 10 years, losing all you have, etc., so should the priest or government official read a warning before declaring you married? When you signed up for Facebook, you agreed to their TOS. Compared to the knife, cup, and wife someone has told you _explicitly_ what's going to happen and how, and _you have agreed to that_. What makes it unclear, then?
    - jonathanyc 9y ago
      You realize essentially the only social reason for marriages to be solemnized by a city official or a government official is because it forces people to at least slightly consider the consequences, right? Like it or not, there is not yet a similar sort of widespread awareness of the risks of Facebook. If you asked a random person on the street to explain what could go wrong with a marriage, they could give you so many examples that troubled marriages are literally one of the classic sets ups for jokes. If you asked the average person to explain how the Cambridge Analytica breach happened, or what Facebook can do with the permission to see which WiFi network you’re connected to, for example, they would not be able to give a good explanation.

fdsak 9y ago

We need to stop complaining about how evil Facebook is, and start talking about personal responsibility. I like your standing but there is one more aspect to look at e.g these companies have big data , money and can hire smart people to use that data in a way beyond our imagination.And with backdoor channels to secret agencies and govt. institutions they can manipulate public opinion, as this is the current case. Probably complaining is first step towards greater personal responsibility and to educate all the users who have no idea what is happening around them. Like in the case of tobacco, tobacco companies suppressed scientific research reaching general public through manipulation of media.

kodablah 9y ago

> We need to stop complaining about how evil Facebook is, and start talking about personal responsibility This is so true and so not gonna happen. Too often you see people lauding new regulations, new laws, new ways of telling someone else what to do because they are not smart enough to know for themselves. I wish government and their constant rule-requesting constituency would repurpose their effort into education and promotion of alternatives. > Personally, I don't smoke, and I don't use Facebook. Sadly, there will be a time where you can't do things like those, even being aware of and accepting of the risks.

nkkollaw 9y ago
When