Comment by maxbond | Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxbond | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally.

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.

> People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally.

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 is considered rude to listen to other people's conversations in public. While it's wise not to say anything in public that shouldn't be overheard, that doesn't mean it isn't rude to eavesdrop.

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.)

Okay, maybe I will frame it another way. Public social media is like shouting your content on a public square to anyone who wants to view it. Eavesdropping is the wrong analogy here, as it is more a publishing of your own personalized newspaper that anyone can read if they so chose. To then expect privacy from that is unreasonable, hence why I call it the user's problem, of false expectations despite repeatedly being told to the contrary by the social media service itself. There is nothing unethical about reading said newspaper if you are giving it out freely, that is indeed the expected response from an onlooker on the public square.

Let's say you get a notification from Facebook that an ex liked a post of yours from a year ago.

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.

No, if you don't want people to read every post put out there, do not make them public. There is no use in thinking someone is a jerk if you willingly allow them to do so, i.e., if they're an ex, why would or should they have access to your page in the first place? If you hadn't blocked them or removed them, then, again, it's your fault, as I stated initially.

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.

That's good advice, which is irrelevant to the discussion of why people feel the way they do. I don't think we actually disagree on anything. I think you understand what I'm saying but would prefer to use my comments as a launchpad to express judgments about social media users than to discuss the why, and I just have no interest in that.

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.

I did not write the original "confusion" comment by the way, not sure if you saw that, you will have to ask JumpCrisscross why they're confused. That being said, what is your opinion on why people feel the way they do?

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).

> JumpCrisscross

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44557317

I see. It seems that I fundamentally disagree with your analogies, premises and therefore conclusions. As I said in another thread, real life and online are not the same, the general public does not have the same grievances of one and the other (e.g., they may find it fine to stalk people's social media (or be stalked) and not physically stalk someone in real life (or be stalked)). My point is that only on HN (and technologists in general) do people believe otherwise, and I am pointing out that their feelings do not extend to the public at large.

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.

I think it's bizarre and incorrect to think of social interactions online and in person as fundamentally different. I think this idea that only technologists understand or care is patronizing.

In general, I see people doing things online that they would not do offline, in much the same way one acts professionally at a workplace while not so at home, they're simply different spaces, so that is why I ask why they are different.

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.

I feel like the natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the post is still accessible to them via an alt account that you haven't blocked.

That implies the posts are still public, which they shouldn't be in this scenario.

> When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile.

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.

Of course they do. I never said otherwise.

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?

The point they're making is that you personally perceive it to be a downside while most (the general public) do not.

I've never met someone who thinks social media is an unalloyed good. 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.

> unalloyed good

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com