Most people? Most people don’t know what AdWords is. Most people don’t think much of tracking if at all outside of when they are prompted about it. Or the one or two minor anecdotes they have of (sometimes coincidentally) seeing the same sort of ad on Amazon or Facebook.

?? I think you're absolutely wrong here. My boomer parents who can't setup a Smart TV and played blu-rays in standard definition for years absolutely know that Google and Amazon are tracking everything they do and have reached out to me on several occasions about reducing how much data Big Tech gets from them.

I think you're totally out of touch with the general populace if you think average users don't keenly feel the spying gaze of big tech.

My 92 year old grandfather moved to iOS two years ago, at age 90, to reduce how much Google got from him. Dude doesn't know a damn thing about computers, but he knows Google is spying.

I think it's valid to suggest that people don't trade links to reduce spying.

Here's my anecdote to counter your anecdote. When I try to explain stuff like this to my family members, they barely humor me. Their eyes glaze over. They think I'm crazy. My sister-in-law works in marketing so she's kind of aware of it but has made zero changes to her behavior. Other friends tell me they get more benefit than cost and accept it.

Well here's some data to counter the anecdotes:

- 80%+ of Americans agree that there needs to be Data Privacy legislation controlling big tech https://epic.org/privacy/survey/

- Americans are rather in favor of breaking up big tech and popular anti-trust action continues https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2021/1/dfp_vox_tec...

- Apple has pivoted their iPhone advertising strategy to promote privacy against Big Tech (lol) as their #1 selling point

> This poll was conducted between April 16-April 19, 2021 among a sample of 1992 Registered Voters

80% on an online positive-assertive survey ran on population that small it's a completely bogus statistic.

heck I can't even fathom how people would cite this, the methodological note is three lines, doesn't tell how the participants were selected, say votes were weighted but doesn't say the weights nor the weighted parameters; they have like 72 pages of demographics, probably a couple person for each, and say the error margin is 2%

I apologize that my well-sourced comment, the only comment in this thread with any sourcing at all, did not sufficiently meet your quality standards.

I note with amusement that you did not post this same comment in response to every other reply which included no sources at all.

I suppose one only thinks critically when they disagree.

Answering yes on a poll about privacy legislation doesn’t mean that people think about it in their day to day life or make behavior changes. Look no further than annual reports of companies like Facebook and Twitter for proof of their success.

I checked the second link. Almost no one is actually independent. I am on mobile and don’t feel like doing the citation for this. But that’s one issue immediately with that one. Almost everyone votes one way for senators and president.

The phrasing of the question and prompting of it plays a huge part too. Including Trump’s name at all is huge. It makes it an immediate reactionary political question. Swap Trump for something on the left and you’ll likely get different results. Even without Trump. The prompting is worded the way it is. It’s so political it’s going to skew anything and everything.

For the first one. Your description just sounds reasonable. Why would you say no to general regulation against big tech? Besides not wanting to be a hypocrite if you’re on the right (which clearly shows a ton of them are fine being hypocrites with that 80% figure).

Change regulation to oil companies or manufacturing and suddenly those centrists and people on the right won’t be polling the same way.

Which again means this is more political than any actual knowledge of the situation. People don’t know or understand online privacy by and large. It’s such an obvious take. To argue against it with credible sources that don’t actually relate much to the topic shows how far out your thinking is. There will never be agreement because you’re not even thinking about this in the same way.

From the way you brought up the sources below which are more politically driven than anything else. As if numbers without context can show people care about tracking...I am going to wager you or other relatives at some point or another have said stuff to your relatives who are aware of big tech privacy stuff. Likely some political bias involved too. At that point they don’t know anything about any of it like you yourself admit. They’re just regurgitating what you or another relative have said [a bunch of times].