3 ms·

> Congratulations, they beat you into submission. This is not really an acceptable attitude towards this opinion. You can not mind the current state of trackin

> Congratulations, they beat you into submission. This is not really an acceptable attitude towards this opinion. You can not mind the current state of tracking, acknowledge benefits, etc and should not be demonized or told your opinion was beat into you. And then congratulate them some rude way? I used to wonder why so many people were surprised at recent presidential election results, assumed propaganda must be the cause, assumed ignorance of those they don't understand, take elitist attitudes towards others' preferences, etc. But now I'm starting to understand this cognitive dissonance. It's ok that they don't see tracking as a big deal, it's ok they don't want governments to step in, they aren't just dumb victims beat into submission.

titzer 8y ago
I hope I wasn't rude, I didn't downvote the OP or anything, so I don't think I crossed any lines. Generally speaking opinions that are "meh, status quo seems fine to me" are poorly informed. I don't want to personally attack the OP but they literally stated that they don't want to think about this and would rather spend time doing something more fun. Fine, go ahead, but the rest of us who actually think about the implications of this recognize that a very gradual but very profound shift in society has already occurred. We're not discussing it, frankly, because people are generally passive and some, like the poster, express a pretty dangerous lack of concern. Not only that, but the OP literally said it was a "weird obsession" to be concerned with privacy. That is actually demonization, and it raised my hackles.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > "meh, status quo seems fine to me" are poorly informed Personally, I feel the status quo is preferred over alternatives, but to each their own. Whether someone is poorly informed on a subject or not is hard to gauge and not always something that has to be fixed. The problem here is that ignorance is used as a reason to protect people from themselves forcefully thereby silencing the informed-yet-disagreeing (emphasis on "here" in this situation at this time, can't make generic absolute statements about consumer protection in general). > We're not discussing it, frankly, because people are generally passive and some, like the poster, express a pretty dangerous lack of concern. I see quite the opposite. Can't open any newspaper or obtain any general news without the ills of big-web-tech shoved in your face. The harms are explained as extreme but to many, regardless of what the pitchfork bearers shout, the harms are not that extreme. What's dangerous is over concern and the results of that fervor. But all of that is personal opinion, the good part is the freedom to hold that opinion and act on it personally without imposing.

titzer 8y ago

I hope I wasn't rude, I didn't downvote the OP or anything, so I don't think I crossed any lines. Generally speaking opinions that are "meh, status quo seems fine to me" are poorly informed. I don't want to personally attack the OP but they literally stated that they don't want to think about this and would rather spend time doing something more fun. Fine, go ahead, but the rest of us who actually think about the implications of this recognize that a very gradual but very profound shift in society has already occurred. We're not discussing it, frankly, because people are generally passive and some, like the poster, express a pretty dangerous lack of concern. Not only that, but the OP literally said it was a "weird obsession" to be concerned with privacy. That is actually demonization, and it raised my hackles.

kodablah 8y ago
> "meh, status quo seems fine to me" are poorly informed Personally, I feel the status quo is preferred over alternatives, but to each their own. Whether someone is poorly informed on a subject or not is hard to gauge and not always something that has to be fixed. The problem here is that ignorance is used as a reason to protect people from themselves forcefully thereby silencing the informed-yet-disagreeing (emphasis on "here" in this situation at this time, can't make generic absolute statements about consumer protection in general). > We're not discussing it, frankly, because people are generally passive and some, like the poster, express a pretty dangerous lack of concern. I see quite the opposite. Can't open any newspaper or obtain any general news without the ills of big-web-tech shoved in your face. The harms are explained as extreme but to many, regardless of what the pitchfork bearers shout, the harms are not that extreme. What's dangerous is over concern and the results of that fervor. But all of that is personal opinion, the good part is the freedom to hold that opinion and act on it personally without imposing.