Hacker News Reader

Comment by inanutshellus | Hacker News Reader

I really like Social Cooling's take on privacy (http://www.socialcooling.com/).

SC's take (paraphrasingly, of course) is that without privacy, you're only rewarded for astroturfing your life & feigning a blandly successful life without pot holes.

The Social Dilemma (Netflix docudrama)'s take on it -- that facebook-et-al don't sell "your data" they sell "a guaranteed change in your behavior" -- is also a pretty damn powerful message.

This website's "nobody cares but they shouuuuuld!" baseline argument is not very effective, IMHO. These guys have the right idea -- giving access to privacy tooling -- but this post should've been more focused on education from the get-go. e.g. "We know you feel powerless about privacy. That's why we built [x resource]. Claw control back."

View on HN

I do not think it is a given that the general public feels powerless about privacy.

Why would someone take steps to empower themselves if they see no need for such power?

Well, let's build something here.

The current article argues in its opening that "nobody cares" ... The immediate retort to any "nobody cares" statement -- before one even finishes the sentence -- is "then it's probably for a good reason." It's counter-productive and frames your argument from the "weak outsider" perspective.

So if we ought to frame our argument from a position of competence rather than insecurity (my original point) and assuming people care is incorrect (your point), what ought we say to help people protect themselves?

If the subject comes up, I ask the question: "how to you think Facebook makes money?" I try to educate them on the business side of their social media: what does it look like when you start a Facebook ad-campaign? Select users by criteria, sometimes very complex and precise criteria. How do you feel about an advertiser selecting $subgroup-closely-resembling-partner-in-conversation?

I don't think I'm changing many minds, but I do try to offer a view most will never encounter themselves.

This argument is the least likely to make me care about privacy (though in some cases it could work).

"Advertisers will be able to select you based on your history"... For what? For showing you an ad for the cool pants company that produces just the kind of pants you've always wanted? For an awesome, in-depth coding course? I'd rather get relevant ads than generic crap that I don't care about, even if it makes me spend more money.

To use your profile to target you based on political ideology to influence your opinion in ways that can possibly be against your own interest and to polarize you against other people. Advertising on FB was and still is even with their newer protections used wayyy outside of selling you new pants.

But that's an even weaker rhetorical strategy. You're asking people to admit that they're susceptible to psychological manipulation. It's akin to asking them to admit "I'm weak and have no control over my beliefs". The people who are most vulnerable to that kind of manipulation are exactly the ones who are unlikely to respond well to this kind of rhetoric.

I'm responding the the question the op posed "For what?" and then proceeded to offer the most innocuous thing advertising does when there are far more well known malicious things happening every day.

I agree this won't convince people for the reason you've stated I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about the actual level of harm that happens.

I'm not in the group of people who would not accept I'm being manipulated. I believe that I'm constantly being manipulated by the media, anyway. If a ~100 character Facebook ad can change my political position, then maybe it is for the better?

Seeing the same message over and over and over and over has been proven to have an effect subconsciously.

I think you may not get much traction w/ "boo hoo, facebook is rich" or "oh no, facebook knows what i like".

I mentioned this earlier, but IMHO the best answer is one taken from Netflix's Social Dilemma:

"Facebook makes money by selling a guaranteed change behavior. Your behavior."

That is also socially induced behavior because we value understatement apart from few exceptions.

Tell them they should do it for their kids and they will comply. It is also the truth that when people give away control, that they also implicitly do it for their successors.

Windows or Apple ecosystems aren't good for building tech literacy, which will still be important in the foreseeable future.

You're right: people don't feel a need for that. And it's because all the "spying" ironically happens secretly.

May be if every person got an email every time their data is sold to the third party, things would have changed quickly.

I received this email. It is very strange. I had never heard of the company either but found they are sellers of B2B contact info.

There is no option to request my info be deleted, or even to correct the info so people aren't harassing the wrong person (some of the information wasn't right, they are selling my parents and families addresses instead of mine). They ALSO have a free app that allows up to 5 contact a day, so they might even be giving this info out for free and I'm assuming someone is harvesting as much free data as they can.

It's absurd that there is an entire industry based on selling private info that they themselves acquired from other companies. It's disgusting that people have built an industry on buying and selling private information

I ended up moving as much data as It's disgusting that people have built an industry on buying and selling private informationI could to a private server, but this really isn't the solution. Most people don't have IT backgrounds to be able to do this sort of thing. I hope more people become aware and sIt's disgusting that people have built an industry on buying and selling private informationtart pressuring govt. officials to change laws.

Edit: formatting

I'd say things like moralism also play a role here. We've allowed people to believe in untruths like the idea that people who value privacy have something to hide, or even that the average person has nothing to hide. The latter can be easily seen when you see what people seem naturally prone to sharing on social media that the average non-social media viewer is astounded by.

ironically?

> Why would someone take steps to empower themselves if they see no need for such power?

Try telling someone, even a close friend, that you saw them doing something, while they did not expect to be seen by anyone.

I will give you $5 if they are not in the slightest bit annoyed by that.

I think as the "tech elite" it is more our job, as experts, to teach people. I got my parents to use a VPN because Netflix was hounding them when they would watch movies at their second house. I installed ad blockers (and at the same time privacy badger and HTTPS everywhere) in their browsers. We've talked a lot about surveillance capitalism and they've always quoted Goebbels (unknowingly). But after some time they now excitedly tell me about how wrong the ads are that they get in the mail or on their phones. The same thing has happened with several of my friends (many of whom I've gotten on Signal). The fact that they see wrong flyers in the mail has really also opened their eyes about how much they are tracked. Though I'll admit they're trending a little more towards the paranoid side now, but it is unsurprising when you consider Boomers grew up with Orwell, Huxley, and the Cold War (they also watch Fox).

It became clear to me that "I have nothing to hide" was actually "I don't think I can fight it." It was a justification for an apathetic view. Which I understand. If you try to fight a team of psychologists, mathematicians, and super computers, it seems like you have no chance. I think this same thing goes well beyond just privacy too. But most people need to consider that most people are not tech literate and it is a very daunting idea for them, one that they are pretty embarrassed about.

> but this post should've been more focused on education from the get-go

Meanwhile many schools are rolling out Chromebooks and are happy about it.

Schools are doing that because they are cheap and easy. Funding in schools (at least in the US) is extremely difficult. If Google is going to subsidize your hardware and software in exchange for your habits I can see why schools are left with almost no choice.

I do teach at high school level and, in general, I am unimpressed by what the current generation of education tech brings to the table. Most of them do the same stuff as the tools available 15-20 years ago (Microsoft Office, Skype, Moodle), only more clumsily/slowly and with more dependencies.

If school administration were to save money using subsidized Chromebooks, they could save even more money by stubbornly remaining in the paper age. Teachers would be happier too, and students would at the very least be not worse off; I am even willing to say that they would be forced to learn analog skills that are desperately needed nowadays.

In short, I do not buy that it is lack of options that force schools to buy those products. It is the evil wizardry called "Marketing" that bewitch school administrators and prevent them to see the options in front of their noses.

This Social Cooling site is nonsense.

If you don't like the idea of someone maintaining a "digital reputation" based on your activity on platform X, don't use platform X. It's that simple.

Also: "We should compare this problem to Global Warming." Similarities? Social cooling is subtle and complex, just like global warming! Such insight.

What happens when platform X is "the internet"? Should I just not use that?

yep

Even without a facebook login, facebook still tracks your actions on (virtually) every site you go to, due to facebook API tagging in websites. "Like this page", "Add a comment via the facebook api", "log in w/ facebook", etc. all call home. Even just loading the facebook "Like" images calls home, is logged, and tracks you.

That's client side. If you load 3rd party content into your browser or fail to block, that's on you. I thought usage of ublock origin/privacy badger could be implicitly assumed among the HN crowd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com