[aantix]

I don’t think most people care about privacy all that much.

Most live publicly with their faces on display for all to see and others taking it a step further, participating in Facebook alongside billions of others.

It doesn’t scream facial identity being a major concern.

[_jal]

I don't think most people care much about carcinogens.

Most people have them in their homes, breathe them, eat them, and others take it a step further, participating in the creation of them.

It doesn't scream fear of cancer being a major concern.

[w0m]

You're applying your fear of carcinogens to others. My parents smoke a pack-a-day; I think that's horrifying. There's looking out for others and then there's overreach. It can be hard to discern the difference sometimes.

[_jal]

No, in fact, that's not what I'm doing here at all. The point I'm making has nothing at all to do with my personal feelings about either cancer or privacy issues.

[lonelappde]

Your sarcasm fails because it's truth. Aside from a few direct intense carcinogens like asbestos, carcinogens are not a big deal.

[JohnFen]

I think most people actually care quite a lot.

That people live their lives accepting that their faces are on display is not evidence otherwise, since there is literally no other option.

Participating Facebook is also not evidence otherwise -- at most, it's evidence that people are willing to trade privacy in some circumstances (and I think even that's a bit of a stretch), but I'll bet that most Facebook users would object to having their privacy invaded without their consent -- which means they care about privacy.

[username90]

I'd argue that people care much more about consent than they care about privacy. Like, lots of people give away money for free to beggars but they wouldn't be very happy if a beggar robbed them of the same amount of money.

[aantix]

>since there is literally no other option Living remotely in the mountains/desert/jungle?

I say this with seriousness. When considering this alternative, the option of living alone, without human interaction, public identity shows it positive attributes.

[JohnFen]

Living in a remote location doesn't take away from the fact that you still must spend at least some time in a public space.

[icebraining]

> it's evidence that people are willing to trade privacy in some circumstances

Which is what was being proposed and subsequently doubted: that people were willing to consensually trade their picture for $5.

[matz1]

Then what would you accept as proof/evidence ?

[JohnFen]

A couple of solid independent studies would go a long way.

[candiodari]

Okay ... half of experimental psychology papers are about giving people some small amount of money, or even just some token or just a chance to tell their story for filling out a questionnaire, sometimes extra credit is involved, or incarceration is involved (in psychiatric care) which is where I start having serious ethical problems with it.

Questionnaires where they reveal things, often associated with at least a way to contact them for an interview, but sometimes with name and everything, usually is psychiatric settings (where people are often incarcerated without any proof, trial or any of that I might add). Things like whether they stole from their employer. Whether they ever used violence to obtain sex. They often ask children, homeless, prisoners, patients ... other groups with perceived or real precarious situations. (things that would never pass an ethical review board for, say, medicine)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.5694/j.1326-5377....

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.91.1...

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-07467-001

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020007004436

So yes, I would say that a lot of people are willing to give up a LOT more privacy than a face picture for a small reward.

[JohnFen]

I never claimed people weren't willing to trade privacy for some benefit. I think most people (including myself, if the cost/benefit is favorable to me) are.

But the fact that that's true doesn't mean that people don't care about privacy.

You could even argue that it's indicative that people do care about privacy, as they attach a material value to it. This isn't an argument that I'm really making, but it isn't an unreasonable one.

[candiodari]

What is claimed here is not that nobody values privacy. The only claim is that large amounts of people, some from "vulnerable" groups, would trade privacy for a small reward. The article alleges this only happened because they were lied to.

[tobib]

It's not about that. It's about whether we accept corporate arrogance to make decisions on behalf of a vulnerable demographic.

[aantix]

Billions that participate are now considered "vulnerable"?

[tobib]

Sorry, that was referring to the homeless population from the article.