In my opinion, you're mistaking apathy for ignorance. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the exchange is fair. I work in tech, have heard everything you just wrote many times, and my response is continually, "Eh, I'm okay with that." People I've spoken to about this outside of tech often don't know about the data collection to quite the extent you're talking about and don't care about it. When I mention how extensive the data collection is, they're often surprised, but often they still don't care. The most I've personally seen is a vague discomfort that didn't seem to persist, given the person's behavior didn't change at all.

It gets kind of frustrating for people like myself to hear this argument rehashed over and over in the way you've just presented it, as though people who are okay with their data being used simply "don't understand" or haven't been paying attention. Everything you wrote is - while clearly not neutrally presented - in the zeitgeist on HN. There's nothing really new about it, and you're only convincing the people who already agree with you. Yes, we know our data is being used, we get it. We're picking up what you're putting down. Right there with you. We just don't really care.

You can draw a normative conclusion about me based on that statement if you'd like. It probably sounds callous and asinine from your perspective, but like I said: reasonable people can disagree. Anecdotally speaking, most people I "enlighten" about the data hoovering you describe don't meaningfully change their behavior or preferences. Consider that when people are not aware of how their data is being used, it doesn't always mean they're being victimized; it can also mean they are vaguely aware that their data is "out there", and they implicitly don't care enough about it to investigate further. That's a valid position to take.

Quite, but some of those very same people who don't care will call it creepy when they are on the receiving end of a retargeting campaign. Of course some don't care, or just find it funny. That's how I've got dragged in to those occasional conversations - typically a friend is spooked at the fact suddenly, somehow, as if by magic, the whole internet has decided they want to see ads for Gibson guitars, everywhere. Maybe they mentioned them in a FB comment a few weeks previously, or visited a review site with tracking etc.

I put it to you that they don't care because they have understood the transaction as one of £1 for a bar of chocolate. I give you some photos and emails in exchange for chat and service. "Who cares if Google/FB/NSA know when I have pizza" and so forth.

What they haven't (and yes, I realise I'm stretching this analogy far beyond breaking point) realised is buying that bar of chocolate results in the shop photocopying all their mail, weighing them, planting a bug to listen in to later conversations and having an employee follow them everywhere for the next few weeks - just in case they express another interest in chocolate.

> discomfort that didn't seem to persist, given the person's behavior didn't change at all.

I think network effect can cover most of that - continue to use Facebook because everyone they know is there, whilst having a vague perception that Facebook doesn't have their interests at heart.

It's still valid for them not to care, of course, but I think a much more honest explanation from the services of the extent they track, and what they can achieve in aggregate, is called for. I think that because people are still surprised by retargeting and similar techniques, and often describe it as creepy. I'm surprised that they're still surprised, to be honest, given how long it's been going on.

So clearly there is still some significant dissonance out there.

And not only that, but useds aren't expected to try to quell their dissonance by being more adversarial to these mostly free services (some would say its not even an option because it is just impossible™ for them), and companies are expected to try to coddle to useds desires that they won't try to rectify for themselves by being more adversarial.

I don't see this ending well for the useds with cognitive dissonance.

> ...try to coddle to useds desires...

> I don't see this ending well for the useds with cognitive dissonance.

Using Stallman-esque terminology like "useds" to refer to people really doesn't encourage anyone to listen to you who doesn't already agree with the point you're making. It's condescending, puerile and snarky to the detriment of discussion. It makes your point seem like the banner of an ideological crusade, not a well reasoned critique.

Consider that calling people "useds" en masse is an extremely poor way to go about convincing them of your perspective. It implicitly puts you above them intellectually and delegitimizes their opinions. If all you want to do is signal your ingroup to other people then using the term "useds" makes sense. But if you actually want people to listen to you who don't already agree, it comes across as tonedeaf.

You could simply use the common word which is not going to distract anyone and literally nothing of value would be lost.

If one's opinion at the end of the day doesn't involve one changing one's behavior to combat the influences of those who use information about/relating to them, then sure one can call it out that I'm delegitimizing their opinion and implicitly putting myself above them intellectually, regardless of whether or not I think that is completely true based on what I have observed of people who are in a state of cognitive dissonance (self admitted or not) and continue to engage intimately with these platforms/services/devices/applications.

Still, it is ultimately up to everyone to change their own behavior in face of their own cognitive dissonance, instead of the usual discussions on here that are infantilizing and void of the reality of the situation, as if we as people have no sense of self agency.

>…If all you want to do is signal your ingroup to other people then using the term "useds" makes sense.…

This is probably closer to the truth.

In actuality, the reason I have been able to work with some of the data I have is because of useds, so in a sense I'm grateful because I get to research things that builds on what we know now (or more selfishly, I can get better personal insight into the behaviors of others around me). So if those who have cognitive dissonance don't want to listen to me, and continue on doing nothing except delegating their responsibility for their choices to others, that's fine, because the way things are now, it will only get better for those who will be able to leverage such.

I've always wondered: How is that different from A/B testing, or any other marketing experiment?

- They weren't experimenting or measuring ads, clickthroughs, or pageviews views; they were experimenting on and measuring emotions directly

- It was run as a psychological study, and published as a psychological study

Every change to an interface can potentially affect the emotions of users, whether or not you try to measure it.