My prediction: they are going to change their name and move a lot of their business to multiple subsidiary with different names. Until nobody notices anymore it's all one company formerly known as Flock.
Axon, formerly known as TASER did a reputational name change. Worth mentioning that they are also a flock competitor, but they are not in the headlines anymore.
I think that's why they are going to create many subsidiaries with a lot of different brand names. Until those names can't "spread" anymore, because it's too many different names and they often change.
They did such an amazingly bad job on their PR. Their best known products literally exist to keep police from killing people or violating their rights undetected, and instead of meeting the moment and explaining why their products should become mandatory, always-on, permanent replacements for firearms or ADVOKATE-style sworn statements they just kind of... pretended that misuse of their products was WAI and ate the consequences of that.
Those departments buy their products. If they took that angle publicly I bet many departments would suddenly been much less interested in buying/renewing. Accountability seems to be super unpopular (which says A LOT) with their customers.
I get it, but I also just don't understand why they couldn't effectively explain to the police that they were a for-profit company. The police definitely understand that!
Like, when the police were saying "we can't turn on body cameras all the time because it might violate victims rights" the correct response from axon was "we also happen to sell a very expensive victim redaction software on a separate SKU, until you buy that probably just want to let your officers use discretion wink-nod."
(I am maybe unfairly assuming here that their actual intent was to make money rather than protect the public from police abuses. I'd love to hear from folks at Axon if that isn't true!)
They could have just talked out of both sides of their mouths. Tell the public it’s to curb abuse, tell the police in private “we all know what it’s really for” wink-wink-nudge-nudge.
Maybe offer up a few token cases where they caught abuse and the cop got in trouble or something changed as proof.
Nope. You’re right, they ran right into that wall.
The widespread opposition to flock is unfortunately an aberration. The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance, and I think a rebrand has a good chance of working. They'll give it a try either way.
In a poll of "do you want to be surveilled", "do you think mass surveillance is good", sure. But in terms of revealed preferences, people will happily give up privacy for mild convenience.
What's really true is that people are, 99% of the time, not actually given that choice. For "revealed preferences theory" to work, the people involved would need to consistently have a free choice between two options. And for people who have had their finances gradually stretched and stretched over the past 40 years of growing inequality, "cheaper but worse" is not a free choice.
People can choose Facebook or to get in contact with people individually via phone, email or visits, but they prefer Facebook because it's more convenient to put a message there and count as maintenance of a group of relationships. People can choose between accepting the cameras or participating in the democracy they belong in and protest and pressure their representatives, but it's more convenient to accept.
It's true there are people without choice, but most people aren't without choice, and they choose convenience.
The world when Facebook was introduced: "Oh well, I guess I have no choice. There's nothing like Facebook, so I'm forced to upload my family photos to these people. I'm not responsible for doing that. Let me just find somebody to blame, maybe the family that's already using it? Nevermind that there are alternatives for keeping in touch. We don't talk about that. They're just not as convenient, so they're obsolete."
You do know that there were over a dozen social media networks that facebook bought over and effectively extinguished or merged into their behemoth right ? They deliberately ensured that choices were extremely limited. Any "alternative" that got popular and not under control of another behemoth was effectively taken over or killed. So your "use an alternative" logic just does not compute.
This is a specious argument because it neglects to take into account information asymmetries and change over time. When Facebook was first launched, there wasn't any widespread understanding of the breadth/intensity of their data collection and its downstream implications.
People initially chose Facebook because it truly offered a novel and improved service, and the true cost users would pay for it wasn't obvious to anyone yet. The "wall", chronological friends-only feeds, etc. provided genuine value, and at that point the public at large were almost completely oblivious to how much personal data was being collected from them (and even less as to how it might be used in ways counter to their own interests). Once they'd fully captured the vast majority of user share, Facebook clawed back value by deprecating the chronological feed, serving ads and "high-engagement" posts in place of friend submissions, and generally ramped up their data harvesting significantly further since.
Most people would agree that the service is far worse than what they initially signed up for, but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about.
Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively. They're effectively held hostage by network effects that were intentionally planned and designed around producing that lock-in effect and guaranteeing that all potential alternatives either withered on the vine or were absorbed (e.g. Instagram). To the extent there's a "choice," it's a coerced choice on purpose.
> When Facebook was first launched, there wasn't any widespread understanding of the breadth/intensity of their data collection
Come on, you're trying to tell me that people didn't understand that when they give someone a thing, that someone has the thing they gave them?
> provided genuine value
Yes, the convenience.
> how much personal data was being collected from them
"They collected it; I didn't give it to them."
> but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about.
Yes, "the pesky convenience is forcing me."
> Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively.
"My friends and family are forcing me."
Despite my comments, I'm not totally against the use of Facebook, but I am against the surrender of personal agency and blame-shifting these comments are demonstrating.
> Come on, you're trying to tell me that people didn't understand that when they give someone a thing, that someone has the thing they gave them?
This is a bad faith argument, because Facebook collects far, far more than "the thing they gave them".
It's true they collect more, but I wouldn't say "far, far more". They get the most from what you provide yourself. That's unless you have relationships that share too much about you.
Did they stop tracking people through their like buttons by now? If not, there's no argument - they're literally tracking non-users on every site they can! Besides Google, what company is doing as much tracking as much as Facebook?
Wasn't it just last year that it became known how Facebook and Instagram apps track your browsing through WebRTC? That alone is far far more than people knowingly give them.
Learning about their tracking web browsing through WebRTC ports from the apps, you have a point on users not knowingly providing that. Still, if you dissociate from Facebook (not having their apps, not being logged on, etc.) then that tracking would've been ineffective. The rest of my comment stands on their being able to leave it.
Eh I think it depends on the country a lot too. The average UK citizen? Probably. Even as someone from abroad, I know the British are widely stereotyped as having cameras everywhere.
But Americans are raised from birth with the idea of “freedom” and a camera pointed at you recording your every move is antithetical to that. They somewhat tolerate it in private establishments like malls and restaurants but not in public spaces.
There was a period when automated red-light cameras were really popular with municipalities, followed by significant backlash. Since then, the companies selling them have not recovered financially and the cameras never regained popularity. It could happen with Flock, too.
I believe much of the backlash was the fact that companies were bribing municipalities and the majority of fines collected just went to the private companies themselves; <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/former-red-light-camera-company-ceo-pleads-guilty-to-bribery/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/former-red-light-camera...
Shortening the yellow light duration killed people. So far, misuse of flock data has only resulted in people having undertrained cops draw down on them. But somebody's going to pull a trigger soon enough.
Maybe they'll rename to something which has only ever had negative connotations for decades. Maybe something like Palantir. Or maybe Nazgul, Leviathan, Beelzebub, Cyberdyne, or Moloch?
"Moloch" only means "Lord" in its essential consonants. It's the same Semitic triple-root for "Malik" and "Melkite" and "Melchizedek". Cognates: certainly still in widespread use today as forenames and surnames, et. al.
"Leviathan": The full name certainly strikes fear. One of my ancestors brought his family over from Scotland on the Leviathan which was a captured-and-repurposed German passenger vessel. We can imagine: it was ginormous. has an interesting derivation if we take it apart into component parts: they would be recognizable as good guys, or denim jeans I guess. Since Semitic roots standardized on the triple-consonant, we may see ancient tongues incorporated for this one.
"Be-el-ze-bub": "Lord of the Flies", of course; the implication of the English name of the novel about those good children on a desert island, who lived in interesting times. A theophoric name. Shares a root with "Ba'al" of the Tanakh. Glottal stops FTW.
"Nazgûl" -- mainly sounds like "ghoul" to us! <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazg%C3%BBl#Etymological_connotations" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazg%C3%BBl#Etymological_conno...
andix · · focus · HN ↗
adamnemecek · · focus · HN ↗
andix · · focus · HN ↗
dghlsakjg · · focus · HN ↗
SoftTalker · · focus · HN ↗
Avicebron · · focus · HN ↗
andix · · focus · HN ↗
aaronmdjones · · focus · HN ↗
debatem1 · · focus · HN ↗
MBCook · · focus · HN ↗
Those departments buy their products. If they took that angle publicly I bet many departments would suddenly been much less interested in buying/renewing. Accountability seems to be super unpopular (which says A LOT) with their customers.
debatem1 · · focus · HN ↗
Like, when the police were saying "we can't turn on body cameras all the time because it might violate victims rights" the correct response from axon was "we also happen to sell a very expensive victim redaction software on a separate SKU, until you buy that probably just want to let your officers use discretion wink-nod."
(I am maybe unfairly assuming here that their actual intent was to make money rather than protect the public from police abuses. I'd love to hear from folks at Axon if that isn't true!)
MBCook · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe offer up a few token cases where they caught abuse and the cop got in trouble or something changed as proof.
Nope. You’re right, they ran right into that wall.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
debatem1 · · focus · HN ↗
Retr0id · · focus · HN ↗
Avicebron · · focus · HN ↗
I think you would be surprised. Now, whether or not the average local politician is indifferent is not the same as the average person.
Retr0id · · focus · HN ↗
danaris · · focus · HN ↗
What's really true is that people are, 99% of the time, not actually given that choice. For "revealed preferences theory" to work, the people involved would need to consistently have a free choice between two options. And for people who have had their finances gradually stretched and stretched over the past 40 years of growing inequality, "cheaper but worse" is not a free choice.
jolmg · · focus · HN ↗
It's true there are people without choice, but most people aren't without choice, and they choose convenience.
indoorfish · · focus · HN ↗
jolmg · · focus · HN ↗
lenkite · · focus · HN ↗
jolmg · · focus · HN ↗
Phone calls, knocks on doors, emails, regular meetups at places.
NietzscheanNull · · focus · HN ↗
People initially chose Facebook because it truly offered a novel and improved service, and the true cost users would pay for it wasn't obvious to anyone yet. The "wall", chronological friends-only feeds, etc. provided genuine value, and at that point the public at large were almost completely oblivious to how much personal data was being collected from them (and even less as to how it might be used in ways counter to their own interests). Once they'd fully captured the vast majority of user share, Facebook clawed back value by deprecating the chronological feed, serving ads and "high-engagement" posts in place of friend submissions, and generally ramped up their data harvesting significantly further since.
Most people would agree that the service is far worse than what they initially signed up for, but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about.
Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively. They're effectively held hostage by network effects that were intentionally planned and designed around producing that lock-in effect and guaranteeing that all potential alternatives either withered on the vine or were absorbed (e.g. Instagram). To the extent there's a "choice," it's a coerced choice on purpose.
jolmg · · focus · HN ↗
Come on, you're trying to tell me that people didn't understand that when they give someone a thing, that someone has the thing they gave them?
> provided genuine value
Yes, the convenience.
> how much personal data was being collected from them
"They collected it; I didn't give it to them."
> but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about.
Yes, "the pesky convenience is forcing me."
> Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively.
"My friends and family are forcing me."
Despite my comments, I'm not totally against the use of Facebook, but I am against the surrender of personal agency and blame-shifting these comments are demonstrating.
Timon3 · · focus · HN ↗
This is a bad faith argument, because Facebook collects far, far more than "the thing they gave them".
jolmg · · focus · HN ↗
Timon3 · · focus · HN ↗
Wasn't it just last year that it became known how Facebook and Instagram apps track your browsing through WebRTC? That alone is far far more than people knowingly give them.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
jolmg · · focus · HN ↗
Timon3 · · focus · HN ↗
jolmg · · focus · HN ↗
dumberquestions · · focus · HN ↗
Retr0id · · focus · HN ↗
yurishimo · · focus · HN ↗
But Americans are raised from birth with the idea of “freedom” and a camera pointed at you recording your every move is antithetical to that. They somewhat tolerate it in private establishments like malls and restaurants but not in public spaces.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
dlcarrier · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
wildrice · · focus · HN ↗
SoftTalker · · focus · HN ↗
kyleee · · focus · HN ↗
Zigurd · · focus · HN ↗
nilamo · · focus · HN ↗
ButlerianJihad · · focus · HN ↗
"Leviathan": The full name certainly strikes fear. One of my ancestors brought his family over from Scotland on the Leviathan which was a captured-and-repurposed German passenger vessel. We can imagine: it was ginormous. has an interesting derivation if we take it apart into component parts: they would be recognizable as good guys, or denim jeans I guess. Since Semitic roots standardized on the triple-consonant, we may see ancient tongues incorporated for this one.
"Be-el-ze-bub": "Lord of the Flies", of course; the implication of the English name of the novel about those good children on a desert island, who lived in interesting times. A theophoric name. Shares a root with "Ba'al" of the Tanakh. Glottal stops FTW.
"Nazgûl" -- mainly sounds like "ghoul" to us! <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazg%C3%BBl#Etymological_connotations" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazg%C3%BBl#Etymological_conno...
Godwin's Law endures
user_of_the_wek · · focus · HN ↗
giantrobot · · focus · HN ↗
teeray · · focus · HN ↗