Nah. This is only because the effect for most people of the LOSS of their privacy is usually unseen to them. So it feels like privacy/no-privacy is the same thing, no consequence. So, no outcry. No big deal. That apathy is not endorsement or abdication of caring. IT is the same psychological effect as smoking. We all hear "how bad it is". But then you have one. And... nothing. Actually it feels good. And another. Nothing. And another and so on. What are people whining about? Years later, consequences.
Nowadays all this is taught in Grade school. If people want to still use Meta or Tiktok or whatnot despite supposedly being taught this growing up: I don't know what to say.
>IT is the same psychological effect as smoking.
I think smoking is a great analogue for this. It did take decades, but we did slowly get people to care about this without needing to suffer the consequences firsthand.
I was hoping we could streamline that a bit quicker this time, but alas. I guess we need to let it spin for a few more generations to get the ball rolling.
Kids also get taught about smoking in school. It's hammered into them everywhere, all the time. There are massive social prohibitions on smoking. And yet.
The whole point is that people massively discount harms that are not immediately and visibly consequential.
I'm not expecting everyone to be perfectly healthy, ethically minded citizen.I certainly am not. Just an perceived consensus (well, "just". Still asking for the moon apparently). I'd be over the moon if we had 37% rates of people who cared about privacy (the peak of teen smoking rates since they started collecting/publicizing that part of data in 1991). let alone 63%.