In some of the music communities I’m in the content creators are already telling their userbase to go follow them on threads. They’re all talking about some kind of beef between Elon and Mark and the possibility of a boxing match… Mark was right to call the people he’s leaching off of fucking idiots.
People DO care about general and online privacy, but to a point. They will sacrifice some privacy if it means they can see their friends on social media. They will sacrifice some privacy in exchange for free apps.
Most of the public is unaware just HOW much they are being tracked and what is happening to their data. Most people are a bit unsettled when the data is shown to them. We need to educate more people.
I really think this thread is a great example of why the average person doesn’t care that much.
The whole thread is full of comments like “the issues caused by giving away all your data are too abstract, too far away, or too difficult to understand”. This is true by the way, I completely agree.
But I haven’t seen a single comment trying to explain those possible issues in an easily understandable way. The average person (or, at least me) reading threads like this won’t learn anything new. Give me a practical issue that I might face, and if I agree that it’s an issue, I’ll focus more on avoiding that issue.
In other words, an example:
Let’s say I’m a person using lemmy/mastodon, only using privacy-focused search engines etc.
If I would now change to using facebook/threads, started using Chrome as my browser, etc the usual mainstream tracking stuff - what problems can this cause for me in the future?
PS. I do agree with the notion of “minimize the data you give away”, which is one reason I’m here, but I really don’t have an answer for these questions. I’m like “I understand the point of privacy, but can’t explain the reasons”.
I remember back when Snowgen first leaked all of that imfo about government tracking. One show, either the daily show or colbert report, did an episode about it. Almost no one they talked to cared until they mentioned the government can also track your dick pics.
If an algorithm knows exactly who you are, then it knows how you think, and it knows what sort of content will manipulate you politically. And right wing political content is profitable. It’s called the alt right pipeline. Most people have some kind of argument that will manage to radicalise them to any position you can name. Through correlative learning, an algorithm will look at how people like you changed their views, and it’ll send you down the same path. It’s easy.
Cambridge Analytica. Not only did they influence the elections and general political attitude of the Philippines, it also affected US elections as well. I think there was a genocide that was caused by targeted campaigns too, not sure where it happened, though.
don’t forget Facebook knowing that their programs increased teen suicide rated but still stayed course because changing that negative content would lower revenue
Don’t you feel like awareness of it can be the number one thing to protect you from the manipulation that is rampant? I look at everything and say that is trying to change my mind. Unfortunately, with that comes this cynicism that I’m being sold to all the time and whatnot. But if I happen to hop on a browser that doesn’t have AdBlock, I don’t walk away having spent money on snake oil, or I don’t go sign up for my local right wing political action committee, because I’ve been made aware consistently that everything is aimed at getting me to give something.
And let’s be real, we all remember the constant reference to the Reddit hivemind. If we’re saying they’re wasn’t some sort of external influence that landed everyone on the same wavelength, that feels naive. Or I’m a cynic and can’t enjoy anything anymore.
No, awareness isn’t the number 1 protection, it’s the number 3 protection. The number 1 protection is actually having a nuanced understanding of the issues so that when propaganda tries to prey on your misconceptions, it can’t find any. And the number 2 protection is avoiding propaganda, because anything starts to sound persuasive if it’s repeated enough. Awareness is important, but it’s just not as effective as those two other protections. It has too many weaknesses.
I think that’s pretty well put and I’ll agree with it.
In spite of everything telling me not to I still pop over to Reddit because I think there is still value there, even if I have to wade through the bullshit and the bots and whatever. A couple subs weren’t infested with shit yet. But for sure it’s a risk assessment, and I think I got it, but probably I’m not as smart as I think.
Bad actors may use it to manipulate you or cause problems in other aspects of your life (HELLO data breaches!).
This is a hypothetical. Think about all of the normal stuff people could see about you on Facebook. Would you also want those strangers to have your other personal information and possibly passwords? How about your boss? School? Insurance agency? Bank? Someone who works at one of those places, and still remembers that information after they clock out?
Let’s say there isn’t a data breach. They also use that information to try to get you to click ads, even if those ads might be unsafe to click.
Please answer something for me. What is it that makes you think that Zuckerberg would act in your best interests? What would stop him from turning around, selling data again? How can you know that he will keep that data in trustworthy spaces, and away from bad actors?
I wouldn’t even give my own parents access to that level of information unless I absolutely had to. I’m certainly not happier about a stranger having access to it.
This isn’t a plug, but it is a link to an article I wrote for exactly this reason. I tried to succinctly explain why privacy matters with real work examples and precedent.
I’ve always felt like data gathering is kind of like lobbying. It is not directed toward you in person. It is used to shift the way people think and their opinions on topics.
A company / non-profit / movement / whatever lobbying towards a goal might be buying lunches or making seminars and talking about their point with selected group of people who have a say in a topic. Or they might not but they are in the vicinity of the topic or perhaps they are a group that a the company feels like they do not know what the fuck they are talking about and that needs to change.
These are not directed toward you but to a group of people whom you most likely have nothing to do with. This group has power to change something. Whether for good or for bad, that depends who doing the lobbying and for what purpose and how you think about the topic.
Data gathering is similar. This data that is being gathered is not identifiable to you (or it can be but this is not what I am talking about) but it gets clumped together with a buuuuunch of people. This bunch might be people from country x or Christians or people who like Mc Donald’s or who are against gun-rights or pro abortion or people whom think that companies should not be pushing climate change responsibility to the consumer. This clump of people are the same bunch that the lobbyists are targeting. But they do not have direct power over a subject, in general. Point being that even if most of the people have no power over a topic, some of them might (they might hold power oma person company deciding whether to do more against climate change). And even if they do not, they will converse about the topic and this will shift the general consensus around a topic.
And this bunch of people can be very accurately targeted. People in their 20-30s, who graduated (or will soon) from a university that are most likely to go work in high-tech companies in or in the government who have people around them (family, friends) that are against gun-rights but still own guns and do hunting? Ezpz. Or perhaps own a car and drive a lot and have relatives far enough that car is a necessity but have shifted their thinking being more against cars? Np.
The problem is that this does not easily be used against you in particular. But it can be used against a group of people that you are a part of. It is used to shift the way we think as a community. It is used to push ads and news articles (or just the topics of articles because glancing it also works) to you, comments in twitter, posts in Facebook, and change the search results that you might see. Kind of like ads as well; ads work really well even though lots (most?) people would say that ads don’t make them buy a product and only annoy them. Advertisers aren’t dumb, they know exactly what people think and how they function, and ads work.
And again to reiterate, it has nothing to do with you. You are a blip. But you are a part of a larger community and in order to shift that community toward something all of its little bits and pieces need to be moved toward that target. Not all of them need to move toward that target. Just enough.
This got a bit rambly I think but anyhooo it’s kinda how I see it.
So, if I understand correctly, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but the simplified version of this is: data collection allows massive cooperations to target Communities of Interest (CoI) and manipulate them by collectively altering their digital perception via a barrage of targeted advertisements, promoted articles and suggested social media posts?
And all of this leads to an eventual shift in the opinions and desires of said CoIs, leading to what the company would deem desirable behavior, be it growing apathetic to digital privacy, buying their product or growing more engaged with their platform?
Privacy is complicated and often a luxury. Not everyone has the technical understanding to protect their privacy, nor the money to always choose the privacy-conscious option (which are almost always paid options). And to be honest, they shouldn’t really have to if governments did their jobs and brought in effective privacy protection laws.
I think a big part is people don’t understand the impact of what they are losing. It’s not something tangible like their wallet or car being stolen, it’s just “information” and they don’t understand how that data can be used against them. Even when examples are given, such as the Cambridge Analytica incident, they think they are smart enough to be impervious to the manipulation so it doesn’t matter.
I feel like Cambridge Analytics stuff was about picking out who might be vulnerable to those types of political campaigns and by nature there’s probably a bit of a correlation between that type of vulnerability and a lack of understanding of why their privacy is important.
The people who recognise it’s important are unlikely to be the ones picked out by these groups anyway
Also anyone younger than probably 20ish has never known anonymity on the internet and so it’s hard to convince them to make sacrifices to convenience for something they’ve never had (and never will, no matter how much you try)
That’s sad right? When I was starting my privacy journey, I really thought people that’s closest to me would also care about privacy. But no, like for example, when I started using signal, about 2-3 of my friends join.
Is there a business angle to this? Perhaps it’s more about continuing to actively establish an online presence which benefits them directly as musicians than supporting the platform.
I’m not writing that I agree with it, but I can at least understand it if it’s more of a business move. You don’t want to be late to the party if, for example, you’re in the business of parties.
I think the abortion and trans kids situations are putting into sharp relief the danger of large third parties knowing too much about us. Facebook is absolutely scanning its servers for signs of unwanted pregnancies and relaying that information to red state law enforcement. Other platforms may be doing the same thing.
Women in the US are advised not to use period-tracker apps, given they do often sell the data they glean, and don’t discriminate against far-right interests. And anti-abortion organizations are shopping.
On TechDirt (which I use a lot for tech-industry news) reported this in 2021, so before the Dobbs ruling was leaked or released in May / June 2022.
So, it depends on to what degree you need it confirmed, but it doesn’t seem to be buried.
My most recent trans privacy freak-out was Texas AG Ken Paxton requesting a list of all Texas drivers license / state ID records that have requested a change of sex on their ID, which can also be found searching news.
Just think of all those posts we see that go “so I looked in my Google history and see they’ve been recording everything for the last decade and holy shit this is creepy” oh-snap moments.
It’s just not something a normal person thinks about. I mean, just like a normal person wouldn’t consider the thoughts of a serial killer, similarly people don’t consider that stalking mega corporations could do what they do.
I feel like the average person doesn’t understand their options and doesn’t want to understand them because it’s difficult to them. When I try to help explain privacy issues to others, their eyes glaze over instantly. They don’t want their private information to be collected and sold, but they don’t have the attention span to learn about “tech stuff”.
If threads scrapes these sites and somehow links your account to your name, do you really want do recieve ads related to your complaint of an illness or condition? You should want to mantain privacy, or at least anonymity.
For the web scrapers, I, actual Hollywood superstar Margot Elise Robbie, stand by everything I’ve ever said on Lemmy that I would never say in real life, including the following:
Sam Altman and his web scrapers can scrape my Academy Award nominated dick. - Margot Robbie
Mots people do care about privacy, but most people see more pressing issues that goes first.
It’s hard to care about something intangible when it’s hard to have a roof over its head, or to pay the bills.
Also musicians won’t hesitate to put their audience at risk.
They doesn’t care about what they’re asking their audience, because they ‘feel’ like they have no choice. Which is objectively wrong.
And musicians are often ignorant about copyright laws, so how can they protect their audience if the don’t know how to defend them self?
Yes, I think it is blatantly obvious how little many people care about their privacy and data. This is the result of an astonishing lack of knowledge and education on the consequences of giving away your data. They cannot imagine how many types of data are stored about them and analyzed to gain all sorts of insights into their life, thoughts, ideas, views and social life. Often people don’t believe they have anything to hide which is always false because we are humans. The other is they underestimate or refuse to believe the the information which can be drawn from your data or the fact that ads and other forms of manipulation do in fact work on them.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it’s related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
Normies are cancer that make EEE & surveillence possible
wow, prideful much
We are all normies
People DO care about general and online privacy, but to a point. They will sacrifice some privacy if it means they can see their friends on social media. They will sacrifice some privacy in exchange for free apps.
Most of the public is unaware just HOW much they are being tracked and what is happening to their data. Most people are a bit unsettled when the data is shown to them. We need to educate more people.
I really think this thread is a great example of why the average person doesn’t care that much.
The whole thread is full of comments like “the issues caused by giving away all your data are too abstract, too far away, or too difficult to understand”. This is true by the way, I completely agree.
But I haven’t seen a single comment trying to explain those possible issues in an easily understandable way. The average person (or, at least me) reading threads like this won’t learn anything new. Give me a practical issue that I might face, and if I agree that it’s an issue, I’ll focus more on avoiding that issue.
In other words, an example:
PS. I do agree with the notion of “minimize the data you give away”, which is one reason I’m here, but I really don’t have an answer for these questions. I’m like “I understand the point of privacy, but can’t explain the reasons”.
I remember back when Snowgen first leaked all of that imfo about government tracking. One show, either the daily show or colbert report, did an episode about it. Almost no one they talked to cared until they mentioned the government can also track your dick pics.
deleted by creator
If an algorithm knows exactly who you are, then it knows how you think, and it knows what sort of content will manipulate you politically. And right wing political content is profitable. It’s called the alt right pipeline. Most people have some kind of argument that will manage to radicalise them to any position you can name. Through correlative learning, an algorithm will look at how people like you changed their views, and it’ll send you down the same path. It’s easy.
Cambridge Analytica. Not only did they influence the elections and general political attitude of the Philippines, it also affected US elections as well. I think there was a genocide that was caused by targeted campaigns too, not sure where it happened, though.
don’t forget Facebook knowing that their programs increased teen suicide rated but still stayed course because changing that negative content would lower revenue
Don’t you feel like awareness of it can be the number one thing to protect you from the manipulation that is rampant? I look at everything and say that is trying to change my mind. Unfortunately, with that comes this cynicism that I’m being sold to all the time and whatnot. But if I happen to hop on a browser that doesn’t have AdBlock, I don’t walk away having spent money on snake oil, or I don’t go sign up for my local right wing political action committee, because I’ve been made aware consistently that everything is aimed at getting me to give something.
And let’s be real, we all remember the constant reference to the Reddit hivemind. If we’re saying they’re wasn’t some sort of external influence that landed everyone on the same wavelength, that feels naive. Or I’m a cynic and can’t enjoy anything anymore.
No, awareness isn’t the number 1 protection, it’s the number 3 protection. The number 1 protection is actually having a nuanced understanding of the issues so that when propaganda tries to prey on your misconceptions, it can’t find any. And the number 2 protection is avoiding propaganda, because anything starts to sound persuasive if it’s repeated enough. Awareness is important, but it’s just not as effective as those two other protections. It has too many weaknesses.
I think that’s pretty well put and I’ll agree with it.
In spite of everything telling me not to I still pop over to Reddit because I think there is still value there, even if I have to wade through the bullshit and the bots and whatever. A couple subs weren’t infested with shit yet. But for sure it’s a risk assessment, and I think I got it, but probably I’m not as smart as I think.
Bad actors may use it to manipulate you or cause problems in other aspects of your life (HELLO data breaches!).
This is a hypothetical. Think about all of the normal stuff people could see about you on Facebook. Would you also want those strangers to have your other personal information and possibly passwords? How about your boss? School? Insurance agency? Bank? Someone who works at one of those places, and still remembers that information after they clock out?
Let’s say there isn’t a data breach. They also use that information to try to get you to click ads, even if those ads might be unsafe to click.
Please answer something for me. What is it that makes you think that Zuckerberg would act in your best interests? What would stop him from turning around, selling data again? How can you know that he will keep that data in trustworthy spaces, and away from bad actors?
I wouldn’t even give my own parents access to that level of information unless I absolutely had to. I’m certainly not happier about a stranger having access to it.
This isn’t a plug, but it is a link to an article I wrote for exactly this reason. I tried to succinctly explain why privacy matters with real work examples and precedent.
https://emilsmith.pro/articles/posts/2023-06-29-practical-tips-for-protecting-your-data-ditching-google-and-why-it-matters/
Great content here, thanks
I’ve always felt like data gathering is kind of like lobbying. It is not directed toward you in person. It is used to shift the way people think and their opinions on topics.
A company / non-profit / movement / whatever lobbying towards a goal might be buying lunches or making seminars and talking about their point with selected group of people who have a say in a topic. Or they might not but they are in the vicinity of the topic or perhaps they are a group that a the company feels like they do not know what the fuck they are talking about and that needs to change.
These are not directed toward you but to a group of people whom you most likely have nothing to do with. This group has power to change something. Whether for good or for bad, that depends who doing the lobbying and for what purpose and how you think about the topic.
Data gathering is similar. This data that is being gathered is not identifiable to you (or it can be but this is not what I am talking about) but it gets clumped together with a buuuuunch of people. This bunch might be people from country x or Christians or people who like Mc Donald’s or who are against gun-rights or pro abortion or people whom think that companies should not be pushing climate change responsibility to the consumer. This clump of people are the same bunch that the lobbyists are targeting. But they do not have direct power over a subject, in general. Point being that even if most of the people have no power over a topic, some of them might (they might hold power oma person company deciding whether to do more against climate change). And even if they do not, they will converse about the topic and this will shift the general consensus around a topic.
And this bunch of people can be very accurately targeted. People in their 20-30s, who graduated (or will soon) from a university that are most likely to go work in high-tech companies in or in the government who have people around them (family, friends) that are against gun-rights but still own guns and do hunting? Ezpz. Or perhaps own a car and drive a lot and have relatives far enough that car is a necessity but have shifted their thinking being more against cars? Np.
The problem is that this does not easily be used against you in particular. But it can be used against a group of people that you are a part of. It is used to shift the way we think as a community. It is used to push ads and news articles (or just the topics of articles because glancing it also works) to you, comments in twitter, posts in Facebook, and change the search results that you might see. Kind of like ads as well; ads work really well even though lots (most?) people would say that ads don’t make them buy a product and only annoy them. Advertisers aren’t dumb, they know exactly what people think and how they function, and ads work.
And again to reiterate, it has nothing to do with you. You are a blip. But you are a part of a larger community and in order to shift that community toward something all of its little bits and pieces need to be moved toward that target. Not all of them need to move toward that target. Just enough.
This got a bit rambly I think but anyhooo it’s kinda how I see it.
So, if I understand correctly, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but the simplified version of this is: data collection allows massive cooperations to target Communities of Interest (CoI) and manipulate them by collectively altering their digital perception via a barrage of targeted advertisements, promoted articles and suggested social media posts?
And all of this leads to an eventual shift in the opinions and desires of said CoIs, leading to what the company would deem desirable behavior, be it growing apathetic to digital privacy, buying their product or growing more engaged with their platform?
Privacy is complicated and often a luxury. Not everyone has the technical understanding to protect their privacy, nor the money to always choose the privacy-conscious option (which are almost always paid options). And to be honest, they shouldn’t really have to if governments did their jobs and brought in effective privacy protection laws.
I think a big part is people don’t understand the impact of what they are losing. It’s not something tangible like their wallet or car being stolen, it’s just “information” and they don’t understand how that data can be used against them. Even when examples are given, such as the Cambridge Analytica incident, they think they are smart enough to be impervious to the manipulation so it doesn’t matter.
I feel like Cambridge Analytics stuff was about picking out who might be vulnerable to those types of political campaigns and by nature there’s probably a bit of a correlation between that type of vulnerability and a lack of understanding of why their privacy is important.
The people who recognise it’s important are unlikely to be the ones picked out by these groups anyway
Hard disagree. Nobody is above this stuff. Thinking you aren’t vulnerable is a good way to become more vulnerable.
Sorry I think you misinterpret what I was saying.
Im saying that those who don’t care about it are also likely the ones that need to care about it the most.
Also anyone younger than probably 20ish has never known anonymity on the internet and so it’s hard to convince them to make sacrifices to convenience for something they’ve never had (and never will, no matter how much you try)
deleted by creator
That’s sad right? When I was starting my privacy journey, I really thought people that’s closest to me would also care about privacy. But no, like for example, when I started using signal, about 2-3 of my friends join.
Is there a business angle to this? Perhaps it’s more about continuing to actively establish an online presence which benefits them directly as musicians than supporting the platform.
I’m not writing that I agree with it, but I can at least understand it if it’s more of a business move. You don’t want to be late to the party if, for example, you’re in the business of parties.
I showed my friend all of the privacy problems with threads and his response was ‘I don’t care, they already have everything anyway’.
I told another friend and their response was ‘I don’t care if they have my data, it’s not much use to them and it doesn’t have any effect on me’
The world is hopeless.
I think the abortion and trans kids situations are putting into sharp relief the danger of large third parties knowing too much about us. Facebook is absolutely scanning its servers for signs of unwanted pregnancies and relaying that information to red state law enforcement. Other platforms may be doing the same thing.
Women in the US are advised not to use period-tracker apps, given they do often sell the data they glean, and don’t discriminate against far-right interests. And anti-abortion organizations are shopping.
I’m not saying I don’t believe you and I wouldn’t put it past right wingers. But I gotta ask if you have a source for any of what you said here?
Welp, a short internet news search of period tracker led me to this interview on Slate
On TechDirt (which I use a lot for tech-industry news) reported this in 2021, so before the Dobbs ruling was leaked or released in May / June 2022.
So, it depends on to what degree you need it confirmed, but it doesn’t seem to be buried.
My most recent trans privacy freak-out was Texas AG Ken Paxton requesting a list of all Texas drivers license / state ID records that have requested a change of sex on their ID, which can also be found searching news.
Actually, the guy was only asking for how many they were, and the report was never made anyways.
People do, but have no clue.
Just think of all those posts we see that go “so I looked in my Google history and see they’ve been recording everything for the last decade and holy shit this is creepy” oh-snap moments.
It’s just not something a normal person thinks about. I mean, just like a normal person wouldn’t consider the thoughts of a serial killer, similarly people don’t consider that stalking mega corporations could do what they do.
I feel like the average person doesn’t understand their options and doesn’t want to understand them because it’s difficult to them. When I try to help explain privacy issues to others, their eyes glaze over instantly. They don’t want their private information to be collected and sold, but they don’t have the attention span to learn about “tech stuff”.
I just use my name and say whatever I want here.
No one will ever believe you anyways.
If threads scrapes these sites and somehow links your account to your name, do you really want do recieve ads related to your complaint of an illness or condition? You should want to mantain privacy, or at least anonymity.
For the web scrapers, I, actual Hollywood superstar Margot Elise Robbie, stand by everything I’ve ever said on Lemmy that I would never say in real life, including the following:
Sam Altman and his web scrapers can scrape my Academy Award nominated dick. - Margot Robbie
Is this like that story where Jim Carey took a handful of fries from someone’s plate and said “Nobody will ever believe you”?
Because I want to believe…
Oh yeah?
“Jack_of_all_derps, deleted by creator”
Poor jack, gone from existence, I think he made god angry or something… ;)
I believe you
Mots people do care about privacy, but most people see more pressing issues that goes first. It’s hard to care about something intangible when it’s hard to have a roof over its head, or to pay the bills.
Also musicians won’t hesitate to put their audience at risk. They doesn’t care about what they’re asking their audience, because they ‘feel’ like they have no choice. Which is objectively wrong.
And musicians are often ignorant about copyright laws, so how can they protect their audience if the don’t know how to defend them self?
Yes, I think it is blatantly obvious how little many people care about their privacy and data. This is the result of an astonishing lack of knowledge and education on the consequences of giving away your data. They cannot imagine how many types of data are stored about them and analyzed to gain all sorts of insights into their life, thoughts, ideas, views and social life. Often people don’t believe they have anything to hide which is always false because we are humans. The other is they underestimate or refuse to believe the the information which can be drawn from your data or the fact that ads and other forms of manipulation do in fact work on them.