,
6 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Thread about rationalization & privacy. On a recent trip to @CAIDA_UBC, I had the good fortune to spend time with two brilliant psychologists: @azimshariff & @WillJettinghof. I learned that privacy issues I’ve been classifying as “normalization” problems can be understood as
@CAIDA_UBC @azimshariff “rationalization” issues. Here are key points from “Privacy Matters…Or Does It? Algorithms, Rationalization, and the Erosion of Concern for Privacy” (sciencedirect.com/science/articl…). First, it isn’t just that the benefits & conveniences of algo-based products are easier to perceive
@CAIDA_UBC @azimshariff than the harms. It’s that the asymmetry also can motivate people to minimize the value of evidence about harms. Second, when harms do occur, they can be experienced in ways that discount their significance. For example, while people derive personal benefits from pay-with-your-
@CAIDA_UBC @azimshariff data services, many harms feel impersonal. For example, the experience of your information being hacked alongside many others can lead to news coverage that turns the situation into an abstract, statistical event. Third, by the time well-publicized harms feel more visceral than
@CAIDA_UBC @azimshariff usual, many of the users who are exposed to these negative outcomes already feel dependent on services. This sense of being stuck feels like a commitment. And it can incline rationalization of continued use due to lack of alternatives & a diminished sense of agency. Fourth,
@CAIDA_UBC @azimshariff believing that we live in a time where privacy is dead can further incline rationalization. It supports the justification that receiving some benefits by paying with personal information is better than the alternative: receiving none & still having no privacy.
