Most people have no idea the amount of data available about them. They may suspect in an abstract way, but this is entirely different to being confronted with the extent of your own data and understanding how it can be used against your own interests. They're also looking to how others are reacting, to see whether they should be concerned or not.
I think many Social Media Co.s have mistaken their customers' distraction and obliviousness for consent.
It reminds me of an acquaintance who made questionable tax claims one year, and didn't get audited so went a bit further each year, growing on the confidence and feeling of a forming 'norm' that came from getting away with more each year.
Tax office audits in my country are pretty random, but I will always remember his ashen face when the audit finally did come.
(I have a feeling this is a known psychological effect, but I can't remember the name of it.)
So too, I'm guessing social media businesses feel that with each passing year they are accruing more implicit consent by virtue of seeing no real kickback from their users.
I feel when kickback finally comes, it will be a tipping point and their business model will be difficult to continue with, in the regulatory landscape that follows.
For surfers, I felt it wasn't just awareness of potential reviews that made it work.
Before you surf, you describe yourself and then someone offers you their trust based on who they think you are.
That's pretty strongly bound up with your self image.
You've described your character in writing. Most people will try hard to live up to that.
If the author is reading, just an observation; because the local repository column is pretty solidly coloured, I kept confusing it with the selected column.
The paper's author, Höffner, names the fragmented German states as the reason IP claims (in this case copyright) was so difficult to enforce.
Now we have international trade agreements enforcing IP in most places. Could this effect partially explain China's rise in tech? They ignored IP for ages.
I mean it's certainly easier to innovate when you're not looking over your shoulder or stopping to ask IP lawyers if they think you've breached anything in trivial parts of your tech.
As someone who codes stuff by myself a lot and needs to pick up tools I've noticed a lot of the knowledge feels like it might come through oral tradition. Handed from developer to developer.
Places have learned which way through the tools cause the least problems and will have an informal community of practice around tools - where you can just quickly ask someone something that may have seemed too trivial to the tool creator to put in the docs.
I use YouTube mostly for music. It recommends different versions of the same song I've searched for and am currently listening to.
Then because I've watched a video about how to assemble my newly bought IKEA bed, it plays me ads for buying another bed because ...I must be in the market for more beds?
I think many Social Media Co.s have mistaken their customers' distraction and obliviousness for consent.
It reminds me of an acquaintance who made questionable tax claims one year, and didn't get audited so went a bit further each year, growing on the confidence and feeling of a forming 'norm' that came from getting away with more each year. Tax office audits in my country are pretty random, but I will always remember his ashen face when the audit finally did come.
(I have a feeling this is a known psychological effect, but I can't remember the name of it.)
So too, I'm guessing social media businesses feel that with each passing year they are accruing more implicit consent by virtue of seeing no real kickback from their users.
I feel when kickback finally comes, it will be a tipping point and their business model will be difficult to continue with, in the regulatory landscape that follows.