3 ms·
I don't think we overestimate it, but definitely assume more awareness than there actually is. Harm is also real, but much less visible than you'd think and thu
by oneplane 3y ago
I don't think we overestimate it, but definitely assume more awareness than there actually is. Harm is also real, but much less visible than you'd think and thus mure easier ignored, especially if the negative effects are asynchronous and take a long time to have an impact.
If people don't know to what degree they are being manipulated, for how long, and what for, they'll probably also not care for the cause of it.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoI'm not saying it's not real- only that it's incredibly privileged to assume that privacy is an extreme issue that requires everyone's attention. Stop the press! These brainiacs who got us into this mess are telling me what to think again!
- parineum 3y ago>Harm is also real, but much less visible than you'd think and thus mure easier ignored, especially if the negative effects are asynchronous and take a long time to have an impact. I agree with this but I think you're missing why people still don't care (as much as you). Lots of people are worried about things that are much more urgent let alone visible, synchronous and immediate. As an example, I avoid social media very staunchly for privacy reasons. I was recently unemployed and when that situation became more urgent, I started a LinkedIn account.
- hot_gril 3y agoMy online data has been mined for over a decade, and I'm still not seeing the harm to me. If anything, the reaction of a cookies warning on every single news article has been more annoying. I also don't see my theoretical risk of being manipulated by the media, but if I'm wrong, like you said, worst case I also won't care. I get being concerned about censorship, keeping guns at home, etc, but this is way down there on my list of concerns.