
It’s not that we’ve failed to rein in Facebook and Google. We’ve not even tried - oil25
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/02/facebook-google-data-change-our-behaviour-democracy
======
PavlovsCat
> research over the past decade suggests that when “users” are informed of
> surveillance capitalism’s backstage operations, they want protection, and
> they want alternatives

I'd love to hear more about said research. It's kinda my hunch, too, the
refrain of "normal people don't care, only a vocal minority of techies do"
doesn't really convince me, but I'm just going by rather spotty anecdotal
evidence.

~~~
zaarn
"normal people don't care" is likely a bit of a meme at this point; most
people don't care because they do not know the extent of surveillance. People
don't know about Google or Criteo tracking their every move despite the later
publishing youtube videos on their channel explaining how exactly they track
every centimeter of a customers movements (not joking on that) in the real
world so they can offer related online ads, in store and once the customer has
left.

Facebook (the product not the company) is outright bleeding users since all
the privacy scandals around it (granted, bleeding to Instagram and Whatsapp).

People ultimately do care but G, F and Friends make very sure that people
don't _KNOW_.

~~~
krageon
> because they do not know the extent of surveillance

In my experience saying "most people don't believe it even when told" is
closer to the truth. To my mind, this is a logical consequence of broad-scale
propaganda that decries anyone who says stuff like this as someone who has a
tin-foil hat on. You can have solid proof from reputable sources for days, but
with most people you will never break through this mental block.

------
johnmarcus
yes, let's blame the ubiquitous machine for millions of American & UK idiots
sharing easily debunked propaganda that lead to both Brexit and The Orange
One. it's so much easier to blame the big corporate overlords than have any
personal responsibility. no one forces you to sign in. no one forces you to
share pics of your lunch meat. no one is stopping you from creating an
alternative, i mean, aside from the fact you can't afford the servers because
without ads you have no way to pay for them.

I hardly think the government - any government - can responsibly regulate a
free market of information without imposing limits on free speech and
innovation.

~~~
ppseafield
Seat belt laws came much later than cars. It used to be a personal decision to
wear one or not. Same goes with drunk driving. Gambling is tightly regulated
and controlled, although it used to not be. Strong and highly addictive drugs
were sold in corner stores.

All of these conditions had a negative effect on society, but individually
could be considered one's personal responsibility. The negative effect in
aggregate was considered strong enough to have to regulate. People are social,
and network effects of social media effects are strong. Seems like it fits a
similar enough niche to warrant regulation.

------
supermatt
This is not a complex issue to solve. We need to BAN PERSONALLY TARGETED
ADVERTISING (and the sale of user data in any form)

Sure it is optimal for the advertiser to be able to target niche demographics,
but its this craze for optimisation that has resulted in this position.

Some things need to be left alone, and personal information is such a thing.
We should go back to contextual advertising. Advertising related to the
content you are viewing. Keyword based advertising.

This level of user tracking and targeting is a new phenomenon. We managed
without it for a long time. It's not critical for discovery. It is a
commercial and political tool. Lets stop treating users as the product - its
wrong on every level.

edit: and so the downvotes start - you tracking apologists are the worst. How
about you leave some constructive feedback instead of just abusing your
downvote ability. I don't care for my internet points, but I care about your
desire to hide anything you disagree with. At least respond with a reason, you
cowards.

~~~
homonculus1
Y'ain't s'posta use caps or talk about downvotes 'round these here parts. But
I agree with you.

~~~
supermatt
Im not in it for the points, so not too fussed. Im just very aware of how this
kind of privacy invasion has moulded the last 10 years of history, and feel
strongly that this is something that needs to change. It's currently a very
negative rated comment, but I don't think HN is probably the place to speak
out against what so many members see as a lucrative business model, so I'm not
entirely surprised. I had the same backlash when I stated that app stores were
a monopoly, only to have recently been justified with these antitrust
investigations. For some reason people idolise these dishonourable business
models. I'll keep in mind your feedback about the all-caps emphasis in future,
but haters gonna hate IMHO ;)

