3 ms·

The widespread opposition to flock is unfortunately an aberration. The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance, and I think a rebrand has a g

The widespread opposition to flock is unfortunately an aberration. The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance, and I think a rebrand has a good chance of working. They'll give it a try either way.

Avicebron 6d ago
> The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance I think you would be surprised. Now, whether or not the average local politician is indifferent is not the same as the average person.
- Retr0id 6d ago
  In a poll of "do you want to be surveilled", "do you think mass surveillance is good", sure. But in terms of revealed preferences, people will happily give up privacy for mild convenience.
  - danaris 6d ago
    "Revealed preferences" are bullshit. What's really true is that people are, 99% of the time, not actually given that choice. For "revealed preferences theory" to work, the people involved would need to consistently have a free choice between two options. And for people who have had their finances gradually stretched and stretched over the past 40 years of growing inequality, "cheaper but worse" is not a free choice.
    - jolmg 6d ago
      People can choose Facebook or to get in contact with people individually via phone, email or visits, but they prefer Facebook because it's more convenient to put a message there and count as maintenance of a group of relationships. People can choose between accepting the cameras or participating in the democracy they belong in and protest and pressure their representatives, but it's more convenient to accept. It's true there are people without choice, but most people aren't without choice, and they choose convenience.
      - indoorfish 6d ago
        De facto no choice is still no choice. A captured market isn't the same as people choosing convenience.
        jolmg 6d ago
        The world when Facebook was introduced: "Oh well, I guess I have no choice. There's nothing like Facebook, so I'm forced to upload my family photos to these people. I'm not responsible for doing that. Let me just find somebody to blame, maybe the family that's already using it? Nevermind that there are alternatives for keeping in touch. We don't talk about that. They're just not as convenient, so they're obsolete."
        lenkite 6d ago
        You do know that there were over a dozen social media networks that facebook bought over and effectively extinguished or merged into their behemoth right ? They deliberately ensured that choices were extremely limited. Any "alternative" that got popular and not under control of another behemoth was effectively taken over or killed. So your "use an alternative" logic just does not compute.
        jolmg 6d ago
        >> alternatives for keeping in touch Phone calls, knocks on doors, emails, regular meetups at places.
      - NietzscheanNull 6d ago
        This is a specious argument because it neglects to take into account information asymmetries and change over time. When Facebook was first launched, there wasn't any widespread understanding of the breadth/intensity of their data collection and its downstream implications. People initially chose Facebook because it truly offered a novel and improved service, and the true cost users would pay for it wasn't obvious to anyone yet. The "wall", chronological friends-only feeds, etc. provided genuine value, and at that point the public at large were almost completely oblivious to how much personal data was being collected from them (and even less as to how it might be used in ways counter to their own interests). Once they'd fully captured the vast majority of user share, Facebook clawed back value by deprecating the chronological feed, serving ads and "high-engagement" posts in place of friend submissions, and generally ramped up their data harvesting significantly further since. Most people would agree that the service is far worse than what they initially signed up for, but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about. Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively. They're effectively held hostage by network effects that were intentionally planned and designed around producing that lock-in effect and guaranteeing that all potential alternatives either withered on the vine or were absorbed (e.g. Instagram). To the extent there's a "choice," it's a coerced choice on purpose.
- jolmg 6d ago
  What's typical is saying "I have nothing to hide" or valuing a bit of convenience over privacy and other principles.
dumberquestions 6d ago
You could be right regarding the reaction but how do you know that? What would be the counterexample?
- Retr0id 6d ago
  The median internet user doesn't even block ads (and associated surveillance). Facebook has 2bn DAU. And so on.
yurishimo 6d ago
Eh I think it depends on the country a lot too. The average UK citizen? Probably. Even as someone from abroad, I know the British are widely stereotyped as having cameras everywhere. But Americans are raised from birth with the idea of “freedom” and a camera pointed at you recording your every move is antithetical to that. They somewhat tolerate it in private establishments like malls and restaurants but not in public spaces.

Avicebron 6d ago

> The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance I think you would be surprised. Now, whether or not the average local politician is indifferent is not the same as the average person.

Retr0id 6d ago
In a poll of "do you want to be surveilled", "do you think mass surveillance is good", sure. But in terms of revealed preferences, people will happily give up privacy for mild convenience.
- danaris 6d ago
  "Revealed preferences" are bullshit. What's really true is that people are, 99% of the time, not actually given that choice. For "revealed preferences theory" to work, the people involved would need to consistently have a free choice between two options. And for people who have had their finances gradually stretched and stretched over the past 40 years of growing inequality, "cheaper but worse" is not a free choice.
  - jolmg 6d ago
    People can choose Facebook or to get in contact with people individually via phone, email or visits, but they prefer Facebook because it's more convenient to put a message there and count as maintenance of a group of relationships. People can choose between accepting the cameras or participating in the democracy they belong in and protest and pressure their representatives, but it's more convenient to accept. It's true there are people without choice, but most people aren't without choice, and they choose convenience.
    - indoorfish 6d ago
      De facto no choice is still no choice. A captured market isn't the same as people choosing convenience.
      - jolmg 6d ago
        The world when Facebook was introduced: "Oh well, I guess I have no choice. There's nothing like Facebook, so I'm forced to upload my family photos to these people. I'm not responsible for doing that. Let me just find somebody to blame, maybe the family that's already using it? Nevermind that there are alternatives for keeping in touch. We don't talk about that. They're just not as convenient, so they're obsolete."
        lenkite 6d ago
        You do know that there were over a dozen social media networks that facebook bought over and effectively extinguished or merged into their behemoth right ? They deliberately ensured that choices were extremely limited. Any "alternative" that got popular and not under control of another behemoth was effectively taken over or killed. So your "use an alternative" logic just does not compute.
        jolmg 6d ago
        >> alternatives for keeping in touch Phone calls, knocks on doors, emails, regular meetups at places.
    - NietzscheanNull 6d ago
      This is a specious argument because it neglects to take into account information asymmetries and change over time. When Facebook was first launched, there wasn't any widespread understanding of the breadth/intensity of their data collection and its downstream implications. People initially chose Facebook because it truly offered a novel and improved service, and the true cost users would pay for it wasn't obvious to anyone yet. The "wall", chronological friends-only feeds, etc. provided genuine value, and at that point the public at large were almost completely oblivious to how much personal data was being collected from them (and even less as to how it might be used in ways counter to their own interests). Once they'd fully captured the vast majority of user share, Facebook clawed back value by deprecating the chronological feed, serving ads and "high-engagement" posts in place of friend submissions, and generally ramped up their data harvesting significantly further since. Most people would agree that the service is far worse than what they initially signed up for, but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about. Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively. They're effectively held hostage by network effects that were intentionally planned and designed around producing that lock-in effect and guaranteeing that all potential alternatives either withered on the vine or were absorbed (e.g. Instagram). To the extent there's a "choice," it's a coerced choice on purpose.
jolmg 6d ago
What's typical is saying "I have nothing to hide" or valuing a bit of convenience over privacy and other principles.

dumberquestions 6d ago

You could be right regarding the reaction but how do you know that? What would be the counterexample?

Retr0id 6d ago
The median internet user doesn't even block ads (and associated surveillance). Facebook has 2bn DAU. And so on.

yurishimo 6d ago

Eh I think it depends on the country a lot too. The average UK citizen? Probably. Even as someone from abroad, I know the British are widely stereotyped as having cameras everywhere. But Americans are raised from birth with the idea of “freedom” and a camera pointed at you recording your every move is antithetical to that. They somewhat tolerate it in private establishments like malls and restaurants but not in public spaces.