6 ms·

People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds,

People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally. If I was talking to a group of friends in real life, and I realized someone in the group was developing an obsession and closely keeping track of everything I said and subjecting it to endless scrutiny, I would be super creeped out. Even though they had every legal right to do that. I understand that to some extent my friends build a profile of me in their heads and use it to anticipate like, if I want to go to an event with them. But that's not really a difference of degree, there's a phase change when it becomes an obsession and it becomes a difference of kind. Similarly sometimes retail workers get to know my taste and will point out some item I would be interested in. Sometimes that makes me uncomfortable, but because I'm shy, not because they did anything wrong. If I learned they were reading my social media profile, it would start feeling uncomfortably close to the plot of The Menu.

satvikpendem 1y ago
> People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally. That's honestly their problem, not the social media's, which clearly ask you whether you want certain content public or private and also remind you to update your privacy settings every few months. Your analogy is not correct, it's more akin to speaking in a public forum within earshot of others then getting weirded out that other people can hear you for some reason; go to a private place if you want a private conversation. It's not an actual moral issue, it's a misunderstanding of public vs private in the first place, which causes those in your example to think it's a moral issue.
- maxbond 1y ago
  It is considered rude to listen to other people's conversations in public. While it's wise not to say anything in public that shouldn't be overheard, that doesn't mean it isn't rude to eavesdrop. It's not a moral issue but it is an ethical issue. I meant morally as in "in spirit" even if it's not illegal. Sorry if that was confusing wording. (For what it's worth, this behavior of restaurants is not on my radar as a priority, and I'm making no calls to action. I was responding to GP's confusion and trying to provide an explanation. I wouldn't support legislation to make it illegal for restaurants to Google you or something.)
  - satvikpendem 1y ago
    Okay, maybe I will frame it another way. Public social media is like shouting your content on a public square to anyone who wants to view it. Eavesdropping is the wrong analogy here, as it is more a publishing of your own personalized newspaper that anyone can read if they so chose. To then expect privacy from that is unreasonable, hence why I call it the user's problem, of false expectations despite repeatedly being told to the contrary by the social media service itself. There is nothing unethical about reading said newspaper if you are giving it out freely, that is indeed the expected response from an onlooker on the public square.
    - maxbond 1y ago
      Let's say you get a notification from Facebook that an ex liked a post of yours from a year ago. Were they authorized to do that? Sure. Is that creepy? Most people would find that creepy. Everyone knows you could read every post that they ever put out there. There is an expectation that you know that's inappropriate. I know that if I engage in discussion on the Internet, there's a good chance someone is going to get bent out of shape about something pretty innocuous I said. They have every right to do so. I still think they're a jerk every time. Is that a me problem? It's something I accept as a cost of doing business, but I think it's actually a them problem. (You've been perfectly civil, this isn't throwing shade, just an example I thought all of us could relate to.) It is generally understood that we are able to do things that we probably shouldn't. Civil inattention makes the world go round.
vineyardmike 1y ago
> When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Everyone I know has dove into the social histories of new dates, friends, coworkers, etc. I simply cannot believe that the "normal public" doesn't recognize that their behavior, which they discuss with friends, can be replicated by others.
- maxbond 1y ago
  Of course they do. I never said otherwise. You can know about a downside to doing something, still decide to do it, and still publicly say that there shouldn't be that downside. That doesn't even make you a hypocrite. Sometimes I drive places. I know that it's dangerous. I accept that risk. But I'll still say people shouldn't be reckless drivers and that we should make the roads safer. And I certainly am not, by accepting the risk of driving, giving someone permission to drive drunk and wreck into me. That'd be a crazy interpretation, right? So what's the difference here?
  - satvikpendem 1y ago
    The point they're making is that you personally perceive it to be a downside while most (the general public) do not.
    - maxbond 1y ago
      I've never met someone who thinks social media is an unalloyed good. I also don't see how you can simultaneously argue they're aware of it and okay with it, but also their position is founded in their ignorance.
      - satvikpendem 1y ago
        > unalloyed good I'm talking specifically about restaurant stalking, not all of the mechanisms of social media. > I also don't see how you can simultaneously argue they're aware of it and okay with it, but also their position is founded in their ignorance. Wrong person, I am clarifying vineyardmike's point, not my own. Even still, one can know something in the abstract, that their profile can also be stalked, but not in the particulars, that someone they dislike is actively stalking them.

satvikpendem 1y ago

> People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally. That's honestly their problem, not the social media's, which clearly ask you whether you want certain content public or private and also remind you to update your privacy settings every few months. Your analogy is not correct, it's more akin to speaking in a public forum within earshot of others then getting weirded out that other people can hear you for some reason; go to a private place if you want a private conversation. It's not an actual moral issue, it's a misunderstanding of public vs private in the first place, which causes those in your example to think it's a moral issue.

maxbond 1y ago
It is considered rude to listen to other people's conversations in public. While it's wise not to say anything in public that shouldn't be overheard, that doesn't mean it isn't rude to eavesdrop. It's not a moral issue but it is an ethical issue. I meant morally as in "in spirit" even if it's not illegal. Sorry if that was confusing wording. (For what it's worth, this behavior of restaurants is not on my radar as a priority, and I'm making no calls to action. I was responding to GP's confusion and trying to provide an explanation. I wouldn't support legislation to make it illegal for restaurants to Google you or something.)
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  Okay, maybe I will frame it another way. Public social media is like shouting your content on a public square to anyone who wants to view it. Eavesdropping is the wrong analogy here, as it is more a publishing of your own personalized newspaper that anyone can read if they so chose. To then expect privacy from that is unreasonable, hence why I call it the user's problem, of false expectations despite repeatedly being told to the contrary by the social media service itself. There is nothing unethical about reading said newspaper if you are giving it out freely, that is indeed the expected response from an onlooker on the public square.
  - maxbond 1y ago
    Let's say you get a notification from Facebook that an ex liked a post of yours from a year ago. Were they authorized to do that? Sure. Is that creepy? Most people would find that creepy. Everyone knows you could read every post that they ever put out there. There is an expectation that you know that's inappropriate. I know that if I engage in discussion on the Internet, there's a good chance someone is going to get bent out of shape about something pretty innocuous I said. They have every right to do so. I still think they're a jerk every time. Is that a me problem? It's something I accept as a cost of doing business, but I think it's actually a them problem. (You've been perfectly civil, this isn't throwing shade, just an example I thought all of us could relate to.) It is generally understood that we are able to do things that we probably shouldn't. Civil inattention makes the world go round.

vineyardmike 1y ago

> When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Everyone I know has dove into the social histories of new dates, friends, coworkers, etc. I simply cannot believe that the "normal public" doesn't recognize that their behavior, which they discuss with friends, can be replicated by others.

maxbond 1y ago
Of course they do. I never said otherwise. You can know about a downside to doing something, still decide to do it, and still publicly say that there shouldn't be that downside. That doesn't even make you a hypocrite. Sometimes I drive places. I know that it's dangerous. I accept that risk. But I'll still say people shouldn't be reckless drivers and that we should make the roads safer. And I certainly am not, by accepting the risk of driving, giving someone permission to drive drunk and wreck into me. That'd be a crazy interpretation, right? So what's the difference here?
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  The point they're making is that you personally perceive it to be a downside while most (the general public) do not.
  - maxbond 1y ago
    I've never met someone who thinks social media is an unalloyed good. I also don't see how you can simultaneously argue they're aware of it and okay with it, but also their position is founded in their ignorance.
    - satvikpendem 1y ago
      > unalloyed good I'm talking specifically about restaurant stalking, not all of the mechanisms of social media. > I also don't see how you can simultaneously argue they're aware of it and okay with it, but also their position is founded in their ignorance. Wrong person, I am clarifying vineyardmike's point, not my own. Even still, one can know something in the abstract, that their profile can also be stalked, but not in the particulars, that someone they dislike is actively stalking them.