Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by codyswann | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

codyswann

"A lot" of people also think the world is flat.

Let's be specific here.

I would say 90% or more of Facebook users couldn't care less if their data is sold to advertisers.

I'm one of those people.

Tell me why I should care. The same thing happens with loyalty cards at Walgreens.

It's the people on Facebook that make Facebook trash, not Facebook itself.

As for your "legistators" (sic), that is the faux outrage I'm talking about.

That's the name of game in politics.

1) Something happens. 2) The media tells people they should get outraged about it 3) People get outraged about it 4) Legislation is enacted to appease the outrage 5) Something else happens. 6) People move on to getting outraged about that.

View on HN

I very deliberately don't participate in loyalty programs. Every single time I go through a checkout at a local business, they ask me for my loyalty info. Every single time, I decline.

Then I swipe my credit card through their machine and give them the exact same credit card number to associate with every purchase I make.

I fully understand that they can track me. I am sending the message that I don't want to be tracked. I am also sending the message that I am willing to pass on their incentives to be tracked, but I am not willing to pass on the convenience of my credit card.

Then I make my credit card company send me a new card every year. So vendors get to track me through less than 50 purchases before I switch.

For businesses that track loyalty by customer name, I will give them the name of a neighbor or other acquaintance. It's astounding how often they are willing to give me back information about that person.

PCI compliance requires, among other things, that a credit card not be used to correlate purchases through time - that’s the main reason loyalty clubs exist; that’s your tracking identifier.

Whether or not this Requirement is observed, audited or enforced I have no idea.

> Tell me why I should care.

I don't care if you care. That's your decision.

> The same thing happens with loyalty cards at Walgreens.

It's not the same thing at all. With loyalty cards I get the OPTION of being rewarded for allowing a company to track me. So I weigh getting rewarded (positive) against sharing my data (negative), and I make a decision.

With Facebook there is no option, they track everyone regardless.

> As for your "legistators" (sic), that is the faux outrage I'm talking about.

> That's the name of game in politics.

> 1) Something happens. 2) The media tells people they should get outraged about it 3) People get outraged about it 4) Legislation is enacted to appease the outrage 5) Something else happens. 6) People move on to getting outraged about that

Yes, so? Peopple are outraged and legislators act. Isn't that how democracy works? It seems you're only just now discovering this.

Tell me why anyone should care.

You have the option of using Facebook or not. If you don't have a Facebook account, they don't have your data.

If you don't have a Walgreens loyalty card, they don't have your data.

People are faux outraged. They're not really outraged at all.

Check this comment in two months and tell me how "outraged" people are at Facebook for selling their data.

It would depend on what kind of "democracy" you're referring to. In a representative democracy where all elected officials are worried about is getting re-elected, then yes, that's exactly how democracy works.

> If you don't have a Facebook account, they don't have your data.

Not quite true, all the like buttons and other FB integration code for websites and apps still collect your data

> If you don't have a Facebook account, they don't have your data.

Wow. You're so clueless you don't even realize how clueless you are.

Facebook absolutely tracks non users and builds profiles in them. Those like and retweet buttons on websites are doing just that. Even if you don't click them! It isn't the same as a completely optional loyalty card.

However, I do agree its mainly fuax outrage that will pass shortly. The stock is already recovering

    "A lot" of people also think the world is flat.

Not really.

More people believe the world is flat than know what a "decentralized social network" is.

More people know what Ben & Jerry's ice-cream is than understand how a touchscreen works.

What's your point?

Changing goalposts. chrstphrknwtn was responding to your comment on privacy and now you changed to talking about decentralized social networks.

Quote:

> I would say 90% or more of Facebook users couldn't care less if their data is sold to advertisers.

So, changing goalposts.

How am I changing goalposts?

I'm making the point that "a lot" is a throwaway term.

It's like saying a car is "very fast."

Well, compared to a jet, a car is not fast at all.

Also, "a lot" means something different to me than it does to you.

So saying "a lot" of people do or believe anything is meaningless.

> How am I changing goalposts?

chrstphrknwtn was responding to your comment on privacy and now you changed to talking about decentralized social networks.

Additionally, an average person is able to understand what both are. The real issue is whether people think an idea has any value, not whether they understand domain-specific terminology.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com