3 ms·
Let's say that person A refuses to use $APP and person B only communicates through $APP. Then, from A's perspective, it is just a small accommodation for B to
by remedan 3y ago
Let's say that person A refuses to use $APP and person B only communicates through $APP.
Then, from A's perspective, it is just a small accommodation for B to communicate through alternative means. And from B's perspective, it is just a small accommodation for A to use $APP.
- mordae 3y agoUnless one of them says: "Look, I am not letting Zuck suck up my personal data and watch ads if there is an alternative that's owned by a non-profit, does not show ads and end-to-end encrypts everything as a rule." Asking to use Zucks apps anyway as a small accommodation would paint the one asking as an ignorant who is being unreasonable and does not take care of their digital hygiene properly. Sure, they might resent the other person for pointing their own failings out, but it's hard to actually argue.
- remedan 3y agoI think it's pretty clear at this point that most non-techies place no value on digital privacy. So, from the perspective of someone whose friends all use Zuck's app, the other person is trying to complicate their life for no benefit. Within their value system, they're not being ignorant. Rather, they're perfectly rational.
- hermannj314 3y agoUsually B has several friends, A1...An, that all ask B to use $APP1...$APPk, where k >> 1. There is an incentive to converge to $APP, the tradeoffs are not collectively symmetric when one $APP is already globally dominant.