Hacker News Reader

Comment by idop | Hacker News Reader

I feel it's very easy to counter this argument too. A person can choose to trust specific persons/organizations/governments with their personal information. For example they'll share secrets with some friends but not with all of them. But from there to go to "oh well I've given it to one <insert entity here> I might as well just give it to all of them" is very naive and I would even say defeatist.

View on HN

Defeatist in what sense though? No one I've spoken to feels "defeated" by paying for social media with their data. Most people have experienced exactly zero negative consequences for giving out all their personal info in exchange for access to social media or whatever app is currently popular. So why bother fighting every app for control of info that's already out there and has caused no harm in the past?

I definitely agree with this, although even for the "zero negative consequences" argument I usually counter with "one of your friends loaded all their contacts into some app that shows them who's calling them, and now you're bombarded with text messages offering you black market loans, tons of marketing calls, etc." (which is actually true in Israel).

Anyway, I was going with "defeatist" mostly because it reminded me of an attitude I personally sometimes display when it comes to being overweight: "I already ate above my maintenance window today, I might as well just eat everything in the pantry and fridge and order some family-size pizzas". So, "I've already failed once, might as well keep failing."

The average person does not understand the implications of their actions vis-à-vis IT companies and their personal information.

Moreover, their actions do not affect only themselves, but also all of the people with whom they regularly interact, regardless of whether or not those people themselves have “chosen” to “opt in”.

There is only one solution to this problem, and it is political in nature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com