Example: In the EU so many people care that legistators are taking measures to protect the people.
Perhaps it's just the people around you that don't care...?
Let's be specific here.
I would say 90% or more of Facebook users couldn't care less if their data is sold to advertisers.
I'm one of those people.
Tell me why I should care. The same thing happens with loyalty cards at Walgreens.
It's the people on Facebook that make Facebook trash, not Facebook itself.
As for your "legistators" (sic), that is the faux outrage I'm talking about.
That's the name of game in politics.
1) Something happens. 2) The media tells people they should get outraged about it 3) People get outraged about it 4) Legislation is enacted to appease the outrage 5) Something else happens. 6) People move on to getting outraged about that.
Then I swipe my credit card through their machine and give them the exact same credit card number to associate with every purchase I make.
I fully understand that they can track me. I am sending the message that I don't want to be tracked. I am also sending the message that I am willing to pass on their incentives to be tracked, but I am not willing to pass on the convenience of my credit card.
Then I make my credit card company send me a new card every year. So vendors get to track me through less than 50 purchases before I switch.
For businesses that track loyalty by customer name, I will give them the name of a neighbor or other acquaintance. It's astounding how often they are willing to give me back information about that person.
Whether or not this Requirement is observed, audited or enforced I have no idea.
I don't care if you care. That's your decision.
> The same thing happens with loyalty cards at Walgreens.
It's not the same thing at all. With loyalty cards I get the OPTION of being rewarded for allowing a company to track me. So I weigh getting rewarded (positive) against sharing my data (negative), and I make a decision.
With Facebook there is no option, they track everyone regardless.
> As for your "legistators" (sic), that is the faux outrage I'm talking about.
> That's the name of game in politics.
> 1) Something happens. 2) The media tells people they should get outraged about it 3) People get outraged about it 4) Legislation is enacted to appease the outrage 5) Something else happens. 6) People move on to getting outraged about that
Yes, so? Peopple are outraged and legislators act. Isn't that how democracy works? It seems you're only just now discovering this.
You have the option of using Facebook or not. If you don't have a Facebook account, they don't have your data.
If you don't have a Walgreens loyalty card, they don't have your data.
People are faux outraged. They're not really outraged at all.
Check this comment in two months and tell me how "outraged" people are at Facebook for selling their data.
It would depend on what kind of "democracy" you're referring to. In a representative democracy where all elected officials are worried about is getting re-elected, then yes, that's exactly how democracy works.
Not quite true, all the like buttons and other FB integration code for websites and apps still collect your data
However, I do agree its mainly fuax outrage that will pass shortly. The stock is already recovering
Wow. You're so clueless you don't even realize how clueless you are.
"A lot" of people also think the world is flat.
Quote:
> I would say 90% or more of Facebook users couldn't care less if their data is sold to advertisers.
So, changing goalposts.
I'm making the point that "a lot" is a throwaway term.
It's like saying a car is "very fast."
Well, compared to a jet, a car is not fast at all.
Also, "a lot" means something different to me than it does to you.
So saying "a lot" of people do or believe anything is meaningless.
chrstphrknwtn was responding to your comment on privacy and now you changed to talking about decentralized social networks.
What's your point?
If you said to someone "I'm going to collect information about you whether you like it or not, and then sell it to someone who wants to manipulate your thinking", then I suspect they wouldn't be so keen on the data being collected (let alone sold) in the first place.
And you literally just described the profession of marketing. So if you replaced the inflammatory phrase "manipulate your thinking" with "market toward you", I think they'd be totally fine with it.
I mean, why else do you "Like" something on Facebook anyway unless you want other people to know that you like it?
I agree marketing is intended to manipulate your thinking... or "market towards you". I suspect I have a different attitude about marketing than you do.
I don't use facebook, I used for a week in 2007, and thought "this is just a marketing data machine, no thanks".
Further, the innocuous sounding "Connecting the world" mission doesn't equate to "monitor your social interactions and help people convince you to buy things" (amongst other things) in most people's minds.
The fact that some people choose to remain uninformed about what Facebook is doing with the data that these people willfully give them is on those people.
What is ethical in this situation is personal to you, so you can't make a blanket statement that marketing is or not ethical.
Again, to me, it's perfectly ethical, but I'm a big believer in personal responsibility.
As you said, you signed up, saw what Facebook was about and bailed.
That's called personal choice, and it's a wonderful thing.
What I think is not ok, and in turn unethical, is for a company to constantly represent that privacy is a top priority, openly say in the press that data will not be sold, and then do it anyway.
Most people who uses social media etc. doesn't want to download a lot of things, access should be fairly easy and painless without some sort of "guide", which is what I can see as the downfall for this "social network"
In short order it was not only tech-minded people who did this en-masse. If a platform is convenient for people to do X, it has a good change of also being popular.
This is another example of faux outrage that will pass with the next news cycle.