3 ms·

The average person _does not_ care in the slightest. I have family and friends I have explained the tracking to, with proof, sources, up to date recent news, et

The average person _does not_ care in the slightest. I have family and friends I have explained the tracking to, with proof, sources, up to date recent news, etc. I've explained how and why those companies and applications work, including apps like TikTok. Invariably the answer has been "So what?" and even "I don't have a problem with targeted ads, they're more relevant and good!". Or "I don't care if it's spying on me, everything is. It's fun". PEOPLE in general do not care, even if they claim to know about the tracking.

mindslight 4y ago
People in general are animals that do not reason abstractly, but rather react emotionally. I've had conversations with family members that were already coming into the conversation caring about being "tracked by GPS satellites", and I've tried to explain that it's mostly software on your phone doing the tracking, and that there are ways to mitigate much of it. Rather than seeing that I share their concern, work with technology, and perhaps they could pick up some tips for me, I just got othered for not mirroring their party line of being helplessly attacked. So no, abstractly trying to tell people they're being continually surveilled and trying to get them to care is not a useful indicator. Even if you could obtain and present the contents of their permanent records in a shocking way, there's a good chance they'd just react to the overwhelmingness with cognitive dissonance.
ever1337 4y ago
I have had nearly the opposite experience, for what it's worth. Long conversations with non-technical family members about the pervasiveness of tracking and surveillance. A lot of them share my hatred for social media platforms and identify the 'correct' (in my opinion) issues with these platforms (pseudo-quantification of opinion via like buttons instead of nuanced interactions, mercurial algorithms tailored to individuals destroying any sense of shared reality, etc.). Of course, none of them will actually take the leap and leave these platforms as I have, but I think people are willing to actually recognize these issues. Just depends on who they are. Maybe if you're talking with people you could talk about how this surveillance isn't just used for ads, that the data collected by advertisers is purchased by law enforcement agencies to circumvent legal requirements for warrants, that the police (in the US) with zero oversight can track your every movement via these databases, in open contravention of the spirit of the laws that "regulate" them. Also, I think that the corpo line that surveillance results in "better" ads is simply untrue. I've heard so many people complain about irrelevant ads being served to them. I think there is a growing group of people who feel insulted by the shallow way they are typecast by these ads. A family member who is a carpenter who gets advertised consumerist "manly" products comes to mind. Because ultimately they are not serving you what you want, they are serving you what you are statistically most likely to click on. And at least most people I have asked, have never even clicked on an Instagram or Facebook ad. So the ads presented to "you" are really being presented to a consumerist ad-clicker alternate reality version of you, it is a fundamental disconnect. I think the value advertisers gain from increased "engagement" on ads is increasingly being paid for in the form of alienation of the kinds of people who will simply never respond to this kind of advertising.
autoexec 4y ago
> "I don't have a problem with targeted ads, they're more relevant and good!" They don't care because they don't understand. It's not about 'ads'. the data they give up will increasingly be used against them in ways that matter greatly (like how much they pay for something vs their neighbor, or if they do or don't get offered a job) and in even the most mundane aspects of their life (like how long they wait on hold). If an occasional ad were the true cost they were paying for the fun they're having it wouldn't matter, but that's not the case. They'll be paying over and over for the rest of their lives as the data that's been collected is used against them by everyone who can leverage it for their own advantage.

mindslight 4y ago

People in general are animals that do not reason abstractly, but rather react emotionally. I've had conversations with family members that were already coming into the conversation caring about being "tracked by GPS satellites", and I've tried to explain that it's mostly software on your phone doing the tracking, and that there are ways to mitigate much of it. Rather than seeing that I share their concern, work with technology, and perhaps they could pick up some tips for me, I just got othered for not mirroring their party line of being helplessly attacked. So no, abstractly trying to tell people they're being continually surveilled and trying to get them to care is not a useful indicator. Even if you could obtain and present the contents of their permanent records in a shocking way, there's a good chance they'd just react to the overwhelmingness with cognitive dissonance.

ever1337 4y ago

I have had nearly the opposite experience, for what it's worth. Long conversations with non-technical family members about the pervasiveness of tracking and surveillance. A lot of them share my hatred for social media platforms and identify the 'correct' (in my opinion) issues with these platforms (pseudo-quantification of opinion via like buttons instead of nuanced interactions, mercurial algorithms tailored to individuals destroying any sense of shared reality, etc.). Of course, none of them will actually take the leap and leave these platforms as I have, but I think people are willing to actually recognize these issues. Just depends on who they are. Maybe if you're talking with people you could talk about how this surveillance isn't just used for ads, that the data collected by advertisers is purchased by law enforcement agencies to circumvent legal requirements for warrants, that the police (in the US) with zero oversight can track your every movement via these databases, in open contravention of the spirit of the laws that "regulate" them. Also, I think that the corpo line that surveillance results in "better" ads is simply untrue. I've heard so many people complain about irrelevant ads being served to them. I think there is a growing group of people who feel insulted by the shallow way they are typecast by these ads. A family member who is a carpenter who gets advertised consumerist "manly" products comes to mind. Because ultimately they are not serving you what you want, they are serving you what you are statistically most likely to click on. And at least most people I have asked, have never even clicked on an Instagram or Facebook ad. So the ads presented to "you" are really being presented to a consumerist ad-clicker alternate reality version of you, it is a fundamental disconnect. I think the value advertisers gain from increased "engagement" on ads is increasingly being paid for in the form of alienation of the kinds of people who will simply never respond to this kind of advertising.

autoexec 4y ago

> "I don't have a problem with targeted ads, they're more relevant and good!" They don't care because they don't understand. It's not about 'ads'. the data they give up will increasingly be used against them in ways that matter greatly (like how much they pay for something vs their neighbor, or if they do or don't get offered a job) and in even the most mundane aspects of their life (like how long they wait on hold). If an occasional ad were the true cost they were paying for the fun they're having it wouldn't matter, but that's not the case. They'll be paying over and over for the rest of their lives as the data that's been collected is used against them by everyone who can leverage it for their own advantage.