Walking in, everyone was treated like family and the regulars treated as close family they actually liked (the next level up).
There's always been more to good restaurants than just the food.
People back then could guess how some information about them "leaked" through gossip, and must have known about what's written in the paper about them. If someone found out that a restaurant has info about them that they thought is 100% private then they would find it creepy too.
Today information about people is stolen from people. Information people assume is 100% private, everything they do on the internet (and even many offline things) even without explicitly "posting" or talking about it ends up corelated by some data broker and sold to the least likeable parties. Having this kind of information even when obtained more legitimately just feels like spying to people and is creepy or repulsive by association.
For any restaurant most of this info is passed on by family to make the experience of the event (birthday, anniversary, etc.) more enjoyable. A regular customer celebrating something probably expects and enjoys some level of familiarity and won't ask too many questions or feel betrayed.
From the article, having a CRM, checking public social media, and getting info from the guests themselves is probably fine and even expected for all but a few exceptions.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it" -- Upton Sinclair
Tech people are many orders of magnitude more likely to be getting paid to be "the creeps" by targeting the advertising.
After that system collapses techbros dismissing privacy as a niche concern will be seen as a dangerous relic of less civilized age.
I like opera and I like metal but while both are music, it is a completely different live musical experience.
If they need to scan your social media, that speaks volumes about how you socialize and the quality of those interactions. Plenty of "normal" people don't want this either. The thoughts mean more coming from your friends than a creepy restaurant.
If the goal is to attract and keep patrons, especially at a high end restaurant where details matter, I think some formalities are still reasonably expected.
Read the article, this sort of social media profile research is what people like, and this is what attracts and keeps patrons, memorable experiences versus not. Again, this is why I said normal people don't care, only on HN do I see argument about this.
There are clearly different degrees to which information that is presented in a public space is expected to be disseminated to strangers. Simply being "made public" doesn't necessarily invite invasive spying on every detail of your public actions
Exactly, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, so your friends should go to a private place if they want a private conversation (and similarly not have public social media profiles), not talking within earshot of others and expecting privacy, that people would close their ears while one talks. Restaurants, stores, and other such areas are explicitly not private places, I can't tell you the number of times I can hear embarrassing stories with no extra effort in my part, simply because people talk loud enough to hear.
That is exactly what I'm saying so I'm not sure we disagree. Don't put things on social media you don't want people to see, or at least make your profiles private, because people can and will look and you can't expect otherwise.
We certainly agree that social media and in-person conversations in public spaces have the same expectation of privacy, but that's not the point I'm getting at.
What I am asking is, don't you think it would be considered inappropriate to spy on such conversations even though it's technically and legally possible to do so?
Our judgments as to what is considered socially acceptable behaviour aren't strictly ruled by what is technically or legally possible, nor should they be.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Do not expect privacy in a public forum, it is simply not how the world works and thinking otherwise just sets you up for disappointment, or even worse, actual harm (say, a stalker seeing your complete address because you did not deign to make that information private). I really don't get why people argue about this concept, the solution is literally right there to fix but it seems that people perform mental gymnastics to not fix the root issue but instead call it a host of names like "creepy," an "expectation" of being "inappropriate," "being a jerk," a "moral issue," or "unethical." No, just fix the damn problem once and for all and be done with it.
I took "confusion" in the original comment to mean "I'm curious why this is." You seem to be saying you "don't get it" to mean that they're stupid for making different decisions about the cost versus benefit of social media use, or for wanting to reduce that cost. Again, just not something I'm interested in discussing further.
Relating to your second paragraph, it seems, at least to me, that the answer to "I'm curious why this is" is genuinely related to ignorance or lack of interest in changing their privacy settings, rather them them being stupid per se (if you want to define "stupid" to mean so, then I guess you can but that's not my intention).
I'm aware.
> [What] is your opinion
I don't feel the need to repeat myself, but you may refer to this comment, and if you have specific questions I'm happy to answer them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44555009
> ignorance
Similarly.
Any disagreements I have seen to the contrary on these threads seem to be just another example of my point being proven (as no one has really brought up any good reasoning to why they equate real life to social media), as it seems people here cannot think of themselves as merely a vocal minority not representative of the larger population.
The point about technologists is not meant to be patronizing, it's a trend I've seen. The article itself shows that people seem to be "mind blown" by such restaurant social media stalking, but I doubt they'd be so if a restaurant followed them around in person.
Hence, I see evidence of the two types of interactions being different while I do not see any evidence, in this thread or others, of them being the same, that is why I made the top level comment that I did.
Anyway, this is becoming a long thread and I don't think there's much to be said further on my side. I hope you have a good day.
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.
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?
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.
> If they need to scan your social media, that speaks volumes about how you socialize and the quality of those interactions.
No, it doesn't, and I don't see how you came to the conclusion that if a restaurant had to scan my social media that it says anything about how I socialize. People don't just socialize only on social media, you know.
If my friends care, they will know what to surprise me with better than someone who glanced online as a rote part of their job.
But I have absolutely no problem with haute cuisine restaurants doing this.
There's a few reasons that make this special, and in a completely different universe than being tracked online.
1. Most people, my wife and I included, seldom go to haute cuisine restaurants. When we do, it is a very special, once in a lifetime experience.
2. Restaurants are not staffed by hackers and advertising engineers. They are going to start with opt-in questionnaires that you will fill out when you make your reservation. That questionnaire will often come in one of two forms: a) they will just ask you verbally when you phone or b) they'll send you a package when you make your reservation. That package is usually pretty special unto itself. It's going to feel like a welcome package, and they are going to invite you to share anything that you think is helpful, entirely voluntarily. Typically they'll ask about food preferences and dietary restrictions... but I mean, they'll get a lot just by giving you a text field that asks "Are you celebrating a special occasion, or anything else you want to share?" You're free to put whatever you want in there, and leave anything else out.
3. Now we get to the social media part. This is doing a little bit extra above what most haute cuisines have done in the past. But remember - they can only find what you make public. They're not like, DM'ing people on your friends' lists etc. or hiring a private investigator to stalk you.
Once you're in the door, the idea of remembering that you were there before and jotting down your preferences etc. so that if you return they can make you feel even that more special... this isn't McDonald's, or even a fancy steak house, that we're talking about. This is a place that most people - if they go at all - are going to go ONCE. So people who return are extremely special and to show them that level of "we give a fuck about you" is what sets these restaurants apart.
One experience that my wife and I had was at Victoria & Albert's at Disney's Grand Floridian resort. We spent $2,000 on that meal. Why? Because it was our belated honeymoon. We were highschool sweethearts, got married and had kids really young and were extremely poor for most of our marriage... so we saved up and it was once in a lifetime. For that money... this level of service is a huge part of how they go above and beyond to make their patrons feel like it's worth it. If most people felt freaked out by it, that some personal boundary was being crossed ... it would be the last thing they do. But they realize that your typical dining experience is pretty impersonal. That if you're going to shell out that much money on a dinner... it needs to be more than just the world's best food.
And this, "they can only find what you make public. They're not like, DM'ing people on your friends' lists etc. or hiring a private investigator to stalk you," has been exactly what I've been saying on this thread too, but somehow people think they should be able to keep their profile public yet not have people read through it; that's literally what the word public means.