this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
1452 points (97.1% liked)
Fediverse
28229 readers
573 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem isn't that people don't care. The problem is that the negative consequences are too abstract/too far to see. Not so different than smoking or climate change denial.
You say not so different from smoking or climate change, but those are on completely different scales. Unless Mark Zuckerberg is doing some Samuel L Jackson in Kingsman level nefarious shit, then I don't think you can compare loss of privacy to getting fatal cancer or destroying the planet.
This question has been asked like half a dozen times in this thread and still nobody has come up with a concrete response.
Information is power. Information is used against you pervasively for control. This control ranges in nefariousness. You want examples? Here are some examples of consequences of use of information as a means of power:
The usual response to a list like this goes something along the lines of, bah, none of that will happen to me, I'm a goody-two-shoes. That advice is about as good as saying "I'm a good driver, I won't get into a crash, so I don't need to wear a seatbelt". Back to my point, the consequences of information used against you are too far and too abstract for people to accept.