Data privacy: how to counter the "I have nothing to hide" argument?
I know data privacy is important and I know that big corporations like Meta became powerful enough to even manipulate elections using our data.
But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they "have nothing to hide", and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else.
So, why should people worry about data privacy even if they have "nothing to hide"?
You are viewing a single comment
Seems weird to have a passionate stance on this, then.
What do you want from me? Those algorithms are proprietary. A few select people in the world know what exactly they're doing and which data gets stored how in the databases. We can make assumptions by their behaviour. From time to time something gets leaked and we learn some details. We used to learn how the google pagerank algorithm works in university. Now google suggests me what to read and i just swallow that. And you keep making apologies and deny you can be / are being manipulated...?! or harm you 'reliably'?
I think it's a pretty huge logical stretch to assume I am manipulated because I know algorithms don't have a profile on me you can just look up. That's not how data science works at all.
A good sign you're in conspiracy theory territory is that your entire model breaks down if the algorithm designers aren't specifically supervillains.
what exactly do you think (for example) targeted advertising is? and by looking at the revenue of big tech, do you think it succeeds at that? do you know cambridge analytica and the country of great britain?
we already established they do.
Watch something like "the social dilemma". why do YOU think silicon valley hires psychologists for app design? Do you think it's ethical to try and get people addicted to your product?
I'm sure it succeeds at times. There's a lot of dumb people. However, I don't see how that's an algorithm's fault and not the dumb person's fault.
"The social dilemma" is absurd conspiracy shit lmao. C'mon man don't tell me you believed that shit. Wait til you discover "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way to the Moon"
I'm not gonna debunk the whole show (I'll link one instead) but they hire psychologists because they're pursuing engagement. I have no issue with that. Psychologists work a lot of jobs you wouldn't expect. Psychology (and Philosophy) are actually strong undergrads for people who want Finance careers too.
Debunk: https://daniellenewnham.medium.com/why-the-social-dilemma-is-wrong-17d8b2952187
And another if you can't get past the above paywall: https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/netflix-social-dilemma-tech-1.5740351
Talk about being manipulated, my dude.
I'm not sure what kind of background you have. Sure that movie is complex things 'dumbed down'. It's a movie. Them framing the story to make it thrilling and whatever, doesn't automatically debunk the facts i just told. I should stop with the examples.
What's the difference between your "pursuing engagement" and my "get people addicted". Fact is they carefully design apps to make them engaging. Play a tiktok video just in the right moment to keep you scrolling. sometimes even videos you dislike to invoke feelings. invent karma to keep you invested in your account. fine tune gameification to give rewards to your brain in exactly the right moments to keep you either engaged or buy in-game currency.
You're allowed to submit to that.
And lots of the psychological tricks and methods are designed to be subtle enough to go unnoticed and not interfere.
And what about all the other arguments?
Habits and addictions are not the same thing, which is clearly discussed in the articles I linked that I am now very aware you didn't read.
Perhaps instead of asking me for arguments, read the shit I posted?
I'm sorry. I'm more interested in a debate based on facts, not accusations. You keep dropping two thirds of the argument, debunking one thing with something that's besides the point, and then calling me things that aren't true either. Have a nice day.
(Edit: Thanks for the article on the social dilemma, though. i genuinely was unaware people hold that view on that movie. it's been some time and i don't recall all of the story, maybe i didn't take things face value and thought everyone knew where they stretched the facts. i think i'm going to reconsider and stop recommending that one. I'm not saying i agree 100% to those articles, but there is some merit to this.)