Evolutionary speaking, monocultures are risky. Usually resisting the mainstream is a mistake. Sometimes it really pays off in a big way.
It wouldn't be surprising if 'privacy conscious' people had substantial overlap with the 'I want to be different' crowd. I'm still a bit confused about how someone could actually be privacy conscious, it is too hard to understand the tech stack and too easy for data to get picked up by the ad companies of the internet. Let alone government actors.
This study of Alipay users suggests that regardless of what you thought you were, initial user privacy-concerned activity was largely the same across groups that indicated low, medium, or high concern for privacy.
So in this case you wouldn't be talking about people who actually make different bets, just people who say they make different bets.
Regardless of how users rank themselves in terms of privacy concerns, intensity and duration of engagement with a plethora of Alipay services may be a better predictor of whether a user will engage in privacy-concerned behaviors. This suggests that actual privacy concern may be better described as a learned preference.
Privacy is not a 'hygiene' need. People will never choose privacy over satisfying a (big enough) need. However, privacy-conscious people will always choose the private option between two identical services. They might even accept a discount on the usability because of privacy.
So yes, their behaviour might not change online but that is because there is no acceptable alternative. That is at least how i experience it.
Yes, people give away their private data for small conveniences, much like how pets give away their natural lives in wilderness for a guaranteed meal and a warm house.
There's a book, 'Savages' by Joe Kane, about the Huaorani tribe of Ecuador. The Huaorani were considerably disrupted by the activities of the oil companies, which were polluting their land. The Huao were aware of this, and lobbied the government and journalists to stop it, etc. But nevertheless if there was a food giveaway, or work, in an oil company compound, they would nevertheless take the food or work, allowing themselves to become dependent on them.
In the book this explained as being part of their culture, since on a day to day basis the hunter who brought in food that day gained prestige, and since the oil companies could easily source cheap food, the Huao partly deferred to them even though they knew that the oil companies acted against their interests.
At the time I thought that western people would not fall for such a thing, but maybe it's a more general pattern of human behavior
If their interest was to (also) procure food, the oil company acted in their interest.
The industrial civilization is taking over the Earth not just because it is strong and aggressive, but also because it provides comforts and security to people.
With that, damaging the environment is neither pleasant nor wise. The very society made possible by the industrial civilization pressures the industry to become cleaner, with some success.
The data privacy paradox is very real and I feel we are all guilty of it. There are a couple of reasons that come to my mind.
Firstly, we are short-sighted. We don't understand the consequences of our data being out in the open. Cybercrimes are so sophisticated that probably sharing a family member's email for a small gain is enough to put the entire family at risk of fraud. But at that time we only see the immediate reward, not the long-term risk.
Secondly, we are complacent. Because the scale at which data breaches, people have started feeling that they are going to get attacked regardless of whether they implement safety measures or not.
Privacy is not as important to people as we think it is. Small rewards lure them into sharing important data with ease.
13 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 48.3 ms ] threadIt wouldn't be surprising if 'privacy conscious' people had substantial overlap with the 'I want to be different' crowd. I'm still a bit confused about how someone could actually be privacy conscious, it is too hard to understand the tech stack and too easy for data to get picked up by the ad companies of the internet. Let alone government actors.
So in this case you wouldn't be talking about people who actually make different bets, just people who say they make different bets.
Regardless of how users rank themselves in terms of privacy concerns, intensity and duration of engagement with a plethora of Alipay services may be a better predictor of whether a user will engage in privacy-concerned behaviors. This suggests that actual privacy concern may be better described as a learned preference.
So yes, their behaviour might not change online but that is because there is no acceptable alternative. That is at least how i experience it.
We are being domesticated by big companies!
In the book this explained as being part of their culture, since on a day to day basis the hunter who brought in food that day gained prestige, and since the oil companies could easily source cheap food, the Huao partly deferred to them even though they knew that the oil companies acted against their interests.
At the time I thought that western people would not fall for such a thing, but maybe it's a more general pattern of human behavior
The industrial civilization is taking over the Earth not just because it is strong and aggressive, but also because it provides comforts and security to people.
With that, damaging the environment is neither pleasant nor wise. The very society made possible by the industrial civilization pressures the industry to become cleaner, with some success.
Firstly, we are short-sighted. We don't understand the consequences of our data being out in the open. Cybercrimes are so sophisticated that probably sharing a family member's email for a small gain is enough to put the entire family at risk of fraud. But at that time we only see the immediate reward, not the long-term risk.
Secondly, we are complacent. Because the scale at which data breaches, people have started feeling that they are going to get attacked regardless of whether they implement safety measures or not.
Privacy is not as important to people as we think it is. Small rewards lure them into sharing important data with ease.