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.
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.)