Most people are not the Hacker News types who know this. The Facebook movie is the closest the average person has come to knowing how evil this company is.

Most people if they know, don't care. They don't see an issue with their data being harvested and sold. They think "who cares, why would anyone be interested in me, besides, everyone does it."

They use supermarket loyalty cards to save $0.25 on a gallon of milk. They install tracker apps to save money on gas. People don't care.

I think people do care, but cynical tech types aren't very good at explaining why using a loyalty card or installing an app to save money on gas is ultimately about trade-offs and could be bad for them in the long run. We can't just shake a stick at them and say "abandon your grocery and gas discounts, fools, big tech is always watching!"

People not knowing how to communicate to other people is the core of all problems.

Is it inconceivable that people actually see lower savings in exchange for tracking shopping habits is a beneficial transaction? Safeway can more effectively distribute products. I get to save money. Safeway has an incentive to keep this data secure - if it leaked then their competitors gain an advantage. And even if it does leak, how are my grocery shopping habits being published really going to negatively impact me? I mean, I guess I can see how a dieting influencer secretly buying donuts might be scandalous... but 99.9% probably DGAF if their grocery lists were leaked.

I often find that people just reflexively assume that data collection about their habits is inherently a net negative, rather than laying out the cost benefit analysis.

> Is it inconceivable that people actually see lower savings in exchange for tracking shopping habits is a beneficial transaction?

I would argue that the vast majority of people are unable to fairly evaluate this tradeoff due to the intentional lack of transparency in what is collected, how it is used, and who it gets shared with (and how they use it).

> And even if it does leak, how are my grocery shopping habits being published really going to negatively impact me?

Alone? Not much. It's about aggregating as many data points as possible. Your grocery is just one of those.

And when the data about me is aggregated... what then? I get served ads that are more likely to actually interest me? The data gets leaked and the degree to which I nerd out about amateur radio and videogames is supposed to be scandalous?

Or your car insurance rates go up because of what a model has inferred, rightly or wrongly, about your driving habits. But as the driver you are unaware of this because 1) the car insurance company doesn't tell you 2) your car manufacturer buried it in the legalize jungle of the TOS which no one can reasonably be expected to read.

https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics/personal-informa...

Presumably some people's rates also go down on account of more extensive information gathering. If the insurance company just raised rates across the board, they'd no longer be as cost competitive as other insurance providers.

Not if all insurance providers are playing this game. Like algorithmic rent fixing currently happening.

Insurance companies are some of the most regulated industries: their profit margins are capped by law, at least for healthcare insurance.

Ironic that you mention algorithmic renting fixing: a single digit percentage of the rental market actually used RealPage. And when cities banned it, rents were unchanged. The evidence of rent fixing is largely absent.

> Most people are not the Hacker News types who know this.

many "Hacker News types" happily work for FAANGs, see little to nothing wrong with the social ills their labor causes, and benefit handsomely from it... and would benefit little from acknowledging that or working to change those conditions (or their employment situation).

Sure but you're talking about apples and oranges. These are two different problems.

i don't see it that way. at some point, many individual people make the choice to actually do the work to implement meta's corporate policy in exchange for a lot of money.

Funnily enough, a sequel is in the works:

https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/facebook-movie-soc...

Careless People did a pretty good job here too. Though definitely fewer readers than movie goers.

So is Google and Apple themselves. There is no entity here which is a paragon of virtue in the valley. I do believe that cynicism is detrimental to mental health, and hope stems from assuming things can and do get better sometimes.

Apple > Google == Meta imo

There are people who care about keeping phones out of landfills and Apple (and others) designing products withe low repairability, and also trying their best to block access to parts under the guise of "protecting" the users.