Comment by maxxxxx
6 years ago
I think people would care more see if they could see how much data on them companies have, where it goes and what it's used for. I think they don't really understand the extent of the data collection and selling.
6 years ago
I think people would care more see if they could see how much data on them companies have, where it goes and what it's used for. I think they don't really understand the extent of the data collection and selling.
It is not only what the data is currently used for (mainly ads), but what it could be used for in the future: once collected, any data will be kept forever. And that is much more frightening.
People would care about data if it actually impacted anyone in a tangible negative way. IRL getting served relevant ads and simply having 'more data out there' isn't terrible enough to make most people give up using the Internet.
It's not that something impacts people in a negative way, time and causual linking are paramount. Like slow cooking a frog, if the rate of change (e.g., decline) is slow or even delayed enough, most people won't connect the two events of cause and negative consequences.
If something effects people in a negative way and they see or are effected by the consequences immediately, they often react quite rationally from my experience. If there's any time casual separation, ambiguity, or a time delay resulting in such ambiguity, most simply shrug and accept consequences as "the way things are."
Somewhere in there is a game theoretic analysis involving corporations and populations, not individuals
They would care more, yes. But given the limited bandwidth for outrage, unless something is actually done about it, it becomes tacit approval, and the ratcheting up of the surveillance continues.