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.
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.
andix · · focus · HN ↗
adamnemecek · · 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.