In my own experience and discussions, it isn't so much that people are OK with risking privacy in favor of using any given service/application, but rather more a sense of despair: "I hate it but there's nothing I can do." In some ways this may be the same thing, in that they desire the use of the service/app so much that their desire for privacy is weighed lower.

Personally, my desire for privacy is starting to harm my daily life, as I am apparently unable to access Facebook Groups or Marketplace, both of which are heavily and almost exclusively used in my community for meetups and personal sales respectively. I know rationally that I can make a bare bones FB profile just to use these, but my personal (perhaps unjustified) paranoia currently still wins out.

On that note, if anybody knows of any open source or upcoming alternatives to those two services, please let me know so that I can see about making at least a local dent in FB's monopoly.

anybody knows of any open source or upcoming alternatives

shared server or vps few bucks a month - add a free wordpress+buddypress, add free mediapress plugin - you have your own FB. - you can run one for friends, another for fam.. been thinking of doing exactly that as a quick spin up saas for people.

I recall a while back on HN a mention of a clone-like script for open source meetup.com on github?

Recently read that FB is making it easy to export posts to wordpress.. I have not delved into that yet, nor been on FB since that announcement. Would be great if they opened up marketplace and groups to export content (with the option for the group creators / marketplace listers to block things from being easy exported)

looking forward to less walled-gardens.. or at least more bridges.

How about setting up a simple website of your own to do this for your social circle? In this day and age, this is not only cheap but doesn't require any sort of serious expertise.

> It often feels like privacy advocates start from a position that anyone who doesn't hold the same view as them must be missing some key piece of information, and are unwilling to accept that a person might decide that the tradeoff is actually worth it to them?

That could be the case, albeit that's fairly uncharitable. Usually when I talk to anti-privacy people they have a strong bond to a particular thing that makes them anti-privacy. That could be a bond with corporations that benefit from a lack of privacy or it could be some moral community that tells them a lack of privacy let's them find all the "bad guys". Of course, that's anecdotal.

Personally speaking, I don't mind decreased privacy as long as I have a way to opt out and data stays very anonymized. Providing that kind of choice, and minimal negative effects that negate the ability of a person to opt out, is the optimal choice for me.

This is a position I could support if most privacy advocates didn't also expect accommodation to access services that would normally be funded by their information. I like that my information has value and I'm happy to spend it in place of currency to support a service. Why should someone get the same access I do if they're not willing to pay the toll? It's like listening to a bittorrent leech try to justify themselves.

The bottom line I have is choice and a bit of transparency. If I don't want to give you my data, I should be able to pay a reasonable, uninflated price. If I do, I should get the service based on the value of the data I provide. The second thing is that services need to be transparent with who they're brokering or selling data to, they need to be upfront about how that data will be used, and if they violate any of these conditions you should be able to flush your data.

> are unwilling to accept that a person might decide that the tradeoff is actually worth it to them?

I'm a privacy advocate, but I totally accept this. In fact, there are many instances where I have made such a tradeoff myself. The problem, though, is that very often people make this decision without fully understanding the tradeoff they're making.

That's part of why I lean heavily on the notion of "informed consent". Giving consent without being fully informed of what you're consenting to is not giving meaningful consent -- and entities that live on collecting data about people tend to avoid actually informing people what the deal really is.

> The problem, though, is that very often people make this decision without fully understanding the tradeoff they're making.

This is exactly what I mean though. How are you determining whether someone "fully understands?" And why is the assumption that, after years of extensive media coverage topic, people who are still on these platforms "don't fully understand" the danger, as opposed to they understand and simply don't thing the risk outweigh the benefits?

> How are you determining whether someone "fully understands?"

By talking with them.