[magicGLASSman]

I know the concept very well. Of course their are advantages to using a service that everyone else is using, but it comes down to what you value more your privacy or the inconvenience of a smaller user group/paying a fee. I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now. My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if your views aren't the majority you are at the whims of group think.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now.

That depends on what you mean by that. I think most people care very much about the long-term effects that lack of privacy has on societies. They just are uninformed and therefore don't see those future costs, which is why they make a flawed tradeoff against their own interests.

> My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if your views aren't the majority you are at the whims of group think.

So, if everyone is on facebook, what choice do you have in reaching an audience? If google started manipulating the opinions of the majority of society against your interests, what choice would you have? ...

[magicGLASSman]

>They just are uninformed and therefore don't see those future costs

Who is educating these people? organization who have an interest in keeping the masses ignorant to the effects of privacy.

>which is why they make a flawed tradeoff against their own interests.

this is a common argument it hear, do you not think it is elitist to think that you know better then the common people? Hell, maybe you do, but I bet 10,000 other people also think they know better too. I am going to trust 100 billion micro decisions everyday rather then some academic in an ivory tower who thinks they know the will of the people.

>if everyone is on facebook, what choice do you have in reaching an audience?

Come on, There are many more channels to reach your audience, you are on one right now. Hacker new knows nothing about me other then my username and password.

>If google started manipulating the opinions of the majority of society against your interests, what choice would you have?

duckduckgo, bing, reddit, facebook, TV, or Family people get create their opinions based on a huge number of inputs. The problem is that people want to be told they are right so they only consume things that reinforce their opinion (confirmation bias) but that is a whole other road.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> this is a common argument it hear, do you not think it is elitist to think that you know better then the common people? Hell, maybe you do, but I bet 10,000 other people also think they know better too. I am going to trust 100 billion micro decisions everyday rather then some academic in an ivory tower who thinks they know the will of the people.

What is your point? That people don't ever act against their own interest because of lack of information or understanding?

> Come on, There are many more channels to reach your audience, you are on one right now.

That wasn't the question. The question referred to a hypothetical situation. Stating that the hypothetical situation doesn't match reality doesn't answer the question.

> Hacker new knows nothing about me other then my username and password.

And your IP address and which comment threads you are interested in and which opinions you express and which comments you vote on in which way ... but I guess that's besides the point anyway.

> duckduckgo, bing, reddit, facebook, TV, or Family people get create their opinions based on a huge number of inputs. The problem is that people want to be told they are right so they only consume things that reinforce their opinion (confirmation bias) but that is a whole other road.

How is that a choice you have regarding other people being manipulated against your interests? I don't understand.

[magicGLASSman]

>What is your point?

You don't know what they value most, only they do.

>That wasn't the question.

True, to much hypotheticals

>And your IP address and which comment threads you are interested in and which opinions you express and which comments you vote on in which way ... but I guess that's besides the point anyway.

Your right about that, but if I cover my tracks I give a lot less data then say a Facebook.

>How is that a choice you have regarding other people being manipulated against your interests?

You don't and you never will. People have been manipulating others since the the dawn of humanity. My point is that if people have choice they can take in many inputs and decide the best way to make decisions for themselves instead of being forced to use a service.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> You don't know what they value most, only they do.

But you very well can find out that people commonly proclaim inconsistent values, and that they often regret decisions they made earlier, and that that often coincides with having had inconsistent values.

It's just an empirical fact that if you look at how happy people (claim they) are, for example, people living in police states tend to be less happy than people living in free(ish) societies, while at the same time you still find many people who are very pro law-and-order. Now, I am not telling them whether they should prefer a police state or a free society, I just can empirically observe that people show support for politics that empirically leads to a society that the same people also empirically dislike.

[AndrewKemendo]

Being uninformed is a proxy for how much people care. If they did, they would be informed and demand accountability.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

So, are you saying that people never make decisions that they later regret?

[magicGLASSman]

I wish I had a time machine to change the decisions that I have made, but in that specific time and place with the information that I had at hand, I think I have made the right decisions. I think post people do. Cliché "Hindsight is 20/20"