| |
| ▲ | Retr0id 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The widespread opposition to flock is unfortunately an aberration. The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance, and I think a rebrand has a good chance of working. They'll give it a try either way. | | |
| ▲ | Avicebron 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance I think you would be surprised. Now, whether or not the average local politician is indifferent is not the same as the average person. | | |
| ▲ | Retr0id 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In a poll of "do you want to be surveilled", "do you think mass surveillance is good", sure. But in terms of revealed preferences, people will happily give up privacy for mild convenience. | | |
| ▲ | danaris 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Revealed preferences" are bullshit. What's really true is that people are, 99% of the time, not actually given that choice. For "revealed preferences theory" to work, the people involved would need to consistently have a free choice between two options. And for people who have had their finances gradually stretched and stretched over the past 40 years of growing inequality, "cheaper but worse" is not a free choice. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | People can choose Facebook or to get in contact with people individually via phone, email or visits, but they prefer Facebook because it's more convenient to put a message there and count as maintenance of a group of relationships. People can choose between accepting the cameras or participating in the democracy they belong in and protest and pressure their representatives, but it's more convenient to accept. It's true there are people without choice, but most people aren't without choice, and they choose convenience. | | |
| ▲ | NietzscheanNull 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a specious argument because it neglects to take into account information asymmetries and change over time. When Facebook was first launched, there wasn't any widespread understanding of the breadth/intensity of their data collection and its downstream implications. People initially chose Facebook because it truly offered a novel and improved service, and the true cost users would pay for it wasn't obvious to anyone yet. The "wall", chronological friends-only feeds, etc. provided genuine value, and at that point the public at large were almost completely oblivious to how much personal data was being collected from them (and even less as to how it might be used in ways counter to their own interests). Once they'd fully captured the vast majority of user share, Facebook clawed back value by deprecating the chronological feed, serving ads and "high-engagement" posts in place of friend submissions, and generally ramped up their data harvesting significantly further since. Most people would agree that the service is far worse than what they initially signed up for, but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about. Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively. They're effectively held hostage by network effects that were intentionally planned and designed around producing that lock-in effect and guaranteeing that all potential alternatives either withered on the vine or were absorbed (e.g. Instagram). To the extent there's a "choice," it's a coerced choice on purpose. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > When Facebook was first launched, there wasn't any widespread understanding of the breadth/intensity of their data collection Come on, you're trying to tell me that people didn't understand that when they give someone a thing, that someone has the thing they gave them? > provided genuine value Yes, the convenience. > how much personal data was being collected from them "They collected it; I didn't give it to them." > but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about. Yes, "the pesky convenience is forcing me." > Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively. "My friends and family are forcing me." Despite my comments, I'm not totally against the use of Facebook, but I am against the surrender of personal agency and blame-shifting these comments are demonstrating. | | |
| ▲ | Timon3 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Come on, you're trying to tell me that people didn't understand that when they give someone a thing, that someone has the thing they gave them? This is a bad faith argument, because Facebook collects far, far more than "the thing they gave them". | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's true they collect more, but I wouldn't say "far, far more". They get the most from what you provide yourself. That's unless you have relationships that share too much about you. | | |
| ▲ | Timon3 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did they stop tracking people through their like buttons by now? If not, there's no argument - they're literally tracking non-users on every site they can! Besides Google, what company is doing as much tracking as much as Facebook? Wasn't it just last year that it became known how Facebook and Instagram apps track your browsing through WebRTC? That alone is far far more than people knowingly give them. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Learning about their tracking web browsing through WebRTC ports from the apps, you have a point on users not knowingly providing that. Still, if you dissociate from Facebook (not having their apps, not being logged on, etc.) then that tracking would've been ineffective. The rest of my comment stands on their being able to leave it. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | indoorfish 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | De facto no choice is still no choice. A captured market isn't the same as people choosing convenience. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The world when Facebook was introduced: "Oh well, I guess I have no choice. There's nothing like Facebook, so I'm forced to upload my family photos to these people. I'm not responsible for doing that. Let me just find somebody to blame, maybe the family that's already using it? Nevermind that there are alternatives for keeping in touch. We don't talk about that. They're just not as convenient, so they're obsolete." | | |
| ▲ | lenkite 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You do know that there were over a dozen social media networks that facebook bought over and effectively extinguished or merged into their behemoth right ? They deliberately ensured that choices were extremely limited. Any "alternative" that got popular and not under control of another behemoth was effectively taken over or killed. So your "use an alternative" logic just does not compute. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >> alternatives for keeping in touch Phone calls, knocks on doors, emails, regular meetups at places. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jolmg 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What's typical is saying "I have nothing to hide" or valuing a bit of convenience over privacy and other principles. |
| |
| ▲ | dumberquestions 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You could be right regarding the reaction but how do you know that? What would be the counterexample? | | |
| ▲ | Retr0id 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The median internet user doesn't even block ads (and associated surveillance). Facebook has 2bn DAU. And so on. |
| |
| ▲ | yurishimo 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Eh I think it depends on the country a lot too. The average UK citizen? Probably. Even as someone from abroad, I know the British are widely stereotyped as having cameras everywhere. But Americans are raised from birth with the idea of “freedom” and a camera pointed at you recording your every move is antithetical to that. They somewhat tolerate it in private establishments like malls and restaurants but not in public spaces. |
| |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Axon, formerly known as TASER did a reputational name change. Worth mentioning that they are also a flock competitor, but they are not in the headlines anymore. | | |
| ▲ | debatem1 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They did such an amazingly bad job on their PR. Their best known products literally exist to keep police from killing people or violating their rights undetected, and instead of meeting the moment and explaining why their products should become mandatory, always-on, permanent replacements for firearms or ADVOKATE-style sworn statements they just kind of... pretended that misuse of their products was WAI and ate the consequences of that. | | |
| ▲ | MBCook 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well put, they had a delicate line. Those departments buy their products. If they took that angle publicly I bet many departments would suddenly been much less interested in buying/renewing. Accountability seems to be super unpopular (which says A LOT) with their customers. | | |
| ▲ | debatem1 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I get it, but I also just don't understand why they couldn't effectively explain to the police that they were a for-profit company. The police definitely understand that! Like, when the police were saying "we can't turn on body cameras all the time because it might violate victims rights" the correct response from axon was "we also happen to sell a very expensive victim redaction software on a separate SKU, until you buy that probably just want to let your officers use discretion wink-nod." (I am maybe unfairly assuming here that their actual intent was to make money rather than protect the public from police abuses. I'd love to hear from folks at Axon if that isn't true!) | | |
| ▲ | MBCook 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | They could have just talked out of both sides of their mouths. Tell the public it’s to curb abuse, tell the police in private “we all know what it’s really for” wink-wink-nudge-nudge. Maybe offer up a few token cases where they caught abuse and the cop got in trouble or something changed as proof. Nope. You’re right, they ran right into that wall. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mitxela 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | WAI? | | |
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There have been news stories of localities canceling their Flock contracts and quietly switching to Axon. | | |
| ▲ | Avicebron 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think word is spreading about Axon as well, I'm heartened by the amount of pushback surveillance and abuses of privacy are getting. | |
| ▲ | aaronmdjones 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Some of their customers have even asked them to redesign their cameras so they don't look like Flock cameras. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mitxela 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No they don't. That's why nobody noticed the Motorola cameras going up in places where Flock cameras came down. | |
| ▲ | andix 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, but they might tell people: no, it's not Flock, it's something much safer, not such a privacy invading AI camera like Flock. |
|
