I’m genuinely confused by people who find it creepy that their public social media be scanned and analysed. You made it public!
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.
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 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.