4 ms·

I see your point, but I disagree. There will always be those that just don't give a shit, but I get the feeling that people generally are better educated about

I see your point, but I disagree. There will always be those that just don't give a shit, but I get the feeling that people generally are better educated about privacy and the consequences of freely giving up information online. People not respecting their own privacy is a marketing problem. Teach people it's cool to respect their privacy and people will be more careful. It used to be cool to smoke too, after all.

pessimizer 13y ago
>Teach people it's cool to respect their privacy and people will be more careful. There is no profit in this, and the government makes facebook privacy-encroaching look trivial, so looking to them to regulate it is a non-starter.
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  I disagree that there's no profit potential in it a privacy-focused social network, but a lack of profit potential doesn't mean a social movement is doomed. The anti-smoking campaign wasn't designed to fatten a bottom line, it was designed to create a positive social change, and it worked.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    I think anti-smoking was done to fatten a bottom line. It was largely a money grab by the states, and state/federal/tobacco money continually poured into anti-smoking organizations. The reason why nobody cares anymore is because the money dried up (lawsuits ended, settlements happened), and now tobacco companies themselves are using the laws to keep smaller/foreign competitors and safer alternatives (such as Swedish snus) off the market. Now that there's no money to be had, anti-smoking initiatives are going nowhere. edit: luckily, this money grab contributed to improving the health of the public - but it was still a money grab.
    - kintamanimatt 13y ago
      You certainly live up to your screenname!
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        :)
- Amadou 13y ago
  It isn't that there is no profit in it. There is profit - but it is craigslist level of profit, not google level profit.
RougeFemme 13y ago
"It used to be cool to smoke too, after all." True, but I don't think marketing made it "uncool", at least not initially. I think that started with individuals, families, friends, health-oriented groups. . .the marketers were among the last to the table. I think the same is true of individual privacy.

pessimizer 13y ago

>Teach people it's cool to respect their privacy and people will be more careful. There is no profit in this, and the government makes facebook privacy-encroaching look trivial, so looking to them to regulate it is a non-starter.

kintamanimatt 13y ago
I disagree that there's no profit potential in it a privacy-focused social network, but a lack of profit potential doesn't mean a social movement is doomed. The anti-smoking campaign wasn't designed to fatten a bottom line, it was designed to create a positive social change, and it worked.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  I think anti-smoking was done to fatten a bottom line. It was largely a money grab by the states, and state/federal/tobacco money continually poured into anti-smoking organizations. The reason why nobody cares anymore is because the money dried up (lawsuits ended, settlements happened), and now tobacco companies themselves are using the laws to keep smaller/foreign competitors and safer alternatives (such as Swedish snus) off the market. Now that there's no money to be had, anti-smoking initiatives are going nowhere. edit: luckily, this money grab contributed to improving the health of the public - but it was still a money grab.
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    You certainly live up to your screenname!
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      :)
Amadou 13y ago
It isn't that there is no profit in it. There is profit - but it is craigslist level of profit, not google level profit.

RougeFemme 13y ago

"It used to be cool to smoke too, after all." True, but I don't think marketing made it "uncool", at least not initially. I think that started with individuals, families, friends, health-oriented groups. . .the marketers were among the last to the table. I think the same is true of individual privacy.