People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally.
If I was talking to a group of friends in real life, and I realized someone in the group was developing an obsession and closely keeping track of everything I said and subjecting it to endless scrutiny, I would be super creeped out. Even though they had every legal right to do that.
I understand that to some extent my friends build a profile of me in their heads and use it to anticipate like, if I want to go to an event with them. But that's not really a difference of degree, there's a phase change when it becomes an obsession and it becomes a difference of kind.
Similarly sometimes retail workers get to know my taste and will point out some item I would be interested in. Sometimes that makes me uncomfortable, but because I'm shy, not because they did anything wrong. If I learned they were reading my social media profile, it would start feeling uncomfortably close to the plot of The Menu.
> People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally.
That's honestly their problem, not the social media's, which clearly ask you whether you want certain content public or private and also remind you to update your privacy settings every few months. Your analogy is not correct, it's more akin to speaking in a public forum within earshot of others then getting weirded out that other people can hear you for some reason; go to a private place if you want a private conversation. It's not an actual moral issue, it's a misunderstanding of public vs private in the first place, which causes those in your example to think it's a moral issue.
It is considered rude to listen to other people's conversations in public. While it's wise not to say anything in public that shouldn't be overheard, that doesn't mean it isn't rude to eavesdrop.
It's not a moral issue but it is an ethical issue. I meant morally as in "in spirit" even if it's not illegal. Sorry if that was confusing wording.
(For what it's worth, this behavior of restaurants is not on my radar as a priority, and I'm making no calls to action. I was responding to GP's confusion and trying to provide an explanation. I wouldn't support legislation to make it illegal for restaurants to Google you or something.)
Okay, maybe I will frame it another way. Public social media is like shouting your content on a public square to anyone who wants to view it. Eavesdropping is the wrong analogy here, as it is more a publishing of your own personalized newspaper that anyone can read if they so chose. To then expect privacy from that is unreasonable, hence why I call it the user's problem, of false expectations despite repeatedly being told to the contrary by the social media service itself. There is nothing unethical about reading said newspaper if you are giving it out freely, that is indeed the expected response from an onlooker on the public square.
Let's say you get a notification from Facebook that an ex liked a post of yours from a year ago.
Were they authorized to do that? Sure. Is that creepy? Most people would find that creepy.
Everyone knows you could read every post that they ever put out there. There is an expectation that you know that's inappropriate.
I know that if I engage in discussion on the Internet, there's a good chance someone is going to get bent out of shape about something pretty innocuous I said. They have every right to do so. I still think they're a jerk every time. Is that a me problem? It's something I accept as a cost of doing business, but I think it's actually a them problem. (You've been perfectly civil, this isn't throwing shade, just an example I thought all of us could relate to.)
It is generally understood that we are able to do things that we probably shouldn't. Civil inattention makes the world go round.
No, if you don't want people to read every post put out there, do not make them public. There is no use in thinking someone is a jerk if you willingly allow them to do so, i.e., if they're an ex, why would or should they have access to your page in the first place? If you hadn't blocked them or removed them, then, again, it's your fault, as I stated initially.
Do not expect privacy in a public forum, it is simply not how the world works and thinking otherwise just sets you up for disappointment, or even worse, actual harm (say, a stalker seeing your complete address because you did not deign to make that information private). I really don't get why people argue about this concept, the solution is literally right there to fix but it seems that people perform mental gymnastics to not fix the root issue but instead call it a host of names like "creepy," an "expectation" of being "inappropriate," "being a jerk," a "moral issue," or "unethical." No, just fix the damn problem once and for all and be done with it.
That's good advice, which is irrelevant to the discussion of why people feel the way they do. I don't think we actually disagree on anything. I think you understand what I'm saying but would prefer to use my comments as a launchpad to express judgments about social media users than to discuss the why, and I just have no interest in that.
I took "confusion" in the original comment to mean "I'm curious why this is." You seem to be saying you "don't get it" to mean that they're stupid for making different decisions about the cost versus benefit of social media use, or for wanting to reduce that cost. Again, just not something I'm interested in discussing further.
I did not write the original "confusion" comment by the way, not sure if you saw that, you will have to ask JumpCrisscross why they're confused. That being said, what is your opinion on why people feel the way they do?
Relating to your second paragraph, it seems, at least to me, that the answer to "I'm curious why this is" is genuinely related to ignorance or lack of interest in changing their privacy settings, rather them them being stupid per se (if you want to define "stupid" to mean so, then I guess you can but that's not my intention).
I see. It seems that I fundamentally disagree with your analogies, premises and therefore conclusions. As I said in another thread, real life and online are not the same, the general public does not have the same grievances of one and the other (e.g., they may find it fine to stalk people's social media (or be stalked) and not physically stalk someone in real life (or be stalked)). My point is that only on HN (and technologists in general) do people believe otherwise, and I am pointing out that their feelings do not extend to the public at large.
Any disagreements I have seen to the contrary on these threads seem to be just another example of my point being proven (as no one has really brought up any good reasoning to why they equate real life to social media), as it seems people here cannot think of themselves as merely a vocal minority not representative of the larger population.
I think it's bizarre and incorrect to think of social interactions online and in person as fundamentally different. I think this idea that only technologists understand or care is patronizing.
In general, I see people doing things online that they would not do offline, in much the same way one acts professionally at a workplace while not so at home, they're simply different spaces, so that is why I ask why they are different.
The point about technologists is not meant to be patronizing, it's a trend I've seen. The article itself shows that people seem to be "mind blown" by such restaurant social media stalking, but I doubt they'd be so if a restaurant followed them around in person.
Hence, I see evidence of the two types of interactions being different while I do not see any evidence, in this thread or others, of them being the same, that is why I made the top level comment that I did.
Anyway, this is becoming a long thread and I don't think there's much to be said further on my side. I hope you have a good day.
> When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile.
Everyone I know has dove into the social histories of new dates, friends, coworkers, etc. I simply cannot believe that the "normal public" doesn't recognize that their behavior, which they discuss with friends, can be replicated by others.
You can know about a downside to doing something, still decide to do it, and still publicly say that there shouldn't be that downside. That doesn't even make you a hypocrite.
Sometimes I drive places. I know that it's dangerous. I accept that risk. But I'll still say people shouldn't be reckless drivers and that we should make the roads safer.
And I certainly am not, by accepting the risk of driving, giving someone permission to drive drunk and wreck into me. That'd be a crazy interpretation, right? So what's the difference here?
I've never met someone who thinks social media is an unalloyed good. I also don't see how you can simultaneously argue they're aware of it and okay with it, but also their position is founded in their ignorance.
I'm talking specifically about restaurant stalking, not all of the mechanisms of social media.
> I also don't see how you can simultaneously argue they're aware of it and okay with it, but also their position is founded in their ignorance.
Wrong person, I am clarifying vineyardmike's point, not my own. Even still, one can know something in the abstract, that their profile can also be stalked, but not in the particulars, that someone they dislike is actively stalking them.
If you talk to your friends in person in a public space, would you be comfortable with restauranteurs stealthily following you around and analyzing your conversations? Why is social media any different?
There are clearly different degrees to which information that is presented in a public space is expected to be disseminated to strangers. Simply being "made public" doesn't necessarily invite invasive spying on every detail of your public actions
> If you talk to your friends in person in a public space, would you be comfortable with restauranteurs stealthily following you around and analyzing your conversations? Why is social media any different?
Exactly, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, so your friends should go to a private place if they want a private conversation (and similarly not have public social media profiles), not talking within earshot of others and expecting privacy, that people would close their ears while one talks. Restaurants, stores, and other such areas are explicitly not private places, I can't tell you the number of times I can hear embarrassing stories with no extra effort in my part, simply because people talk loud enough to hear.
Sure, but my question isn't whether you can expect perfect privacy in a public place or not. Obviously you can not, but we live in a trust-based society. My question is whether you think it is socially acceptable to abuse that trust. If it isn't in public, then it shouldn't be on social media either.
> If it isn't in public, then it shouldn't be on social media either.
That is exactly what I'm saying so I'm not sure we disagree. Don't put things on social media you don't want people to see, or at least make your profiles private, because people can and will look and you can't expect otherwise.
I think you're still answering a different question than I'm asking.
We certainly agree that social media and in-person conversations in public spaces have the same expectation of privacy, but that's not the point I'm getting at.
What I am asking is, don't you think it would be considered inappropriate to spy on such conversations even though it's technically and legally possible to do so?
Our judgments as to what is considered socially acceptable behaviour aren't strictly ruled by what is technically or legally possible, nor should they be.
No, I don't find it inappropriate, nor would I call it spying at all. I wrote in another comment that I consider social media searching more like yelling in a public square and thinking that anyone who overhears your shouting is "spying" on you. That is essentially exactly what one is doing when they post publicly on social media.
And if social media users in general broadly disagree with you about that (which seems to be the case, given the confusion), who's to say who is right about this totally subjective standard by which we judge appropriateness? Isn't it society at large which gets to decide societal principles?
Sure, but I don't believe they do disagree though, as I stated in my initial comment that it's generally only those on HN who disagree, a vocal minority. The article shows how regular people don't care, they find it even better service than normal to be catered to. So if that's the case, by your logic, we should agree that it is appropriate, right?
You might be right that this isn't a particularly good example, but I'm not convinced that finding this to be inappropriate is an opinion that's just limited to technologists. I would be interested to see the reader comments on an article like this (but it seems they don't have those on sfgate).
People post videos of others in public all the time, do you think they ask every single person on YouTube to sign a consent waiver to be filmed? There's no "gotcha" as you're implying, those are all things people do already without creepiness.
Is that not also voyeurism? There is a difference between the real world and online, to most normal people, hence my initial comment saying generally only HNers seem to equate the two.
The creepy part isn't what, but why. The article later mentions a place that is "old school" and actually talks to their patrons.
If the goal is to attract and keep patrons, especially at a high end restaurant where details matter, I think some formalities are still reasonably expected.
> If the goal is to attract and keep patrons, especially at a high end restaurant where details matter, I think some formalities are still reasonably expected.
Read the article, this sort of social media profile research is what people like, and this is what attracts and keeps patrons, memorable experiences versus not. Again, this is why I said normal people don't care, only on HN do I see argument about this.
