[nfoz]

> The vast majority of people have no problem with Facebook or what it does. People with a big focus on privacy don’t like it, but the existence of Facebook as a profitable enterprise is proof that there are plenty of people outside this set.

Most people don't have enough knowledge to make an ethical judgement about it. So we do what's convenient and assume it's ok.

That's why I prefer to have proficient regulatory bodies with domain expertise to set rules, rather than expect for market forces ("vote with your dollar") to select for ethical options. Consumers can't be expected to make those choices, not at scale.

So I'm not convinced that "privacy" is really so controversial, even if people keep using Facebook. They don't know how facebook works, or in which ways its business practices "innovated" beyond the status quo that preceded it. Also, most people aren't interested in taking part in a futile boycott of something, even if they'd prefer for it to be restricted/banned for everyone.

[shhehebehdh]

> Most people don't have enough knowledge to make an ethical judgement about it.

I can’t say I agree. People are more than sufficiently knowledgeable to form broad strokes viewpoints about the morality of Facebook. Of course, the details would need to be fleshed out if it were determined that FB were operating outside the popular moral framework. That’s what regulatory bodies are for.

The formation of a regulatory body should be contingent on the presence of a widely held moral viewpoint. If such a viewpoint is not widely held, then the regulatory body does not reflect the will of the people, and its mandate is suspect.

[malvosenior]

When asked most people would tell you that they have nothing to hide. People who voluntarily share all of their personal details online (most people) aren’t likely to be super privacy focused. And that’s ok, we don’t need regulations we need to treat people like adults and allow them to make their own decisions.