And no I'm not going to watch any of your YouTube videos.
...
And if you can't at least digest and regurgitate these ideas you're getting from Youtube in a competent way, then how much can you actually be thinking about these subjects for yourself?
I am digesting and assimilating the information I'm getting from educating myself about the facts, the latest advancements and activities, and what's actually being done. And if you aren't willing to do that, we cannot be on the same page fact-wise, and trying to have a conversation with you is pointless.
And the reason I'm referring you to the videos is because I cannot successfully represent the content of a 1-hour lecture on a given topic in a single forum post here. I understand the concepts and content, as I've put in the work to seek it out, digest it, reflect on it, and assimilate it into my knowledge. But you've got to do that work yourself if we want to have a grounded discussion on a level playing field here.
Ok, so to try and glean what your concerns are (which you stated as "all of the above" to my earlier remark), let's try to look at each one I stated for you. 1. That companies use this data to make money. Yes. They use the information to target you with advertisements. I stated this as the core reason they gather this information. We agree.
As stated before, it's more than showing you ads. This is a view from 5 years ago, and is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about affecting your ability to get a mortgage, insurance, medical care, and participating in other major aspects of society, where corporations can gain an advantage by knowing statistical (and other) information about you as a person.
I'm assuming you understand how the insurance market works. The amount you pay isn't the same as everyone else. It's statistically determined, factoring in any risks that are known about you (age, lifestyle, medical history, existing conditions, etc). Therefore the more that is known about you that could increase risk in the insurance company's eyes, the more you pay. And that concept applies to many other things in society, as many markets are statistically determined or influenced, and where information is power. The more structured information they have, the more powerful they are, and the less good that is for the individual.
2. World domination. Ok. Corporations often use their profits to gain influence over their own government through lobbying and contributions, and by buying off politicians, or even to sway political elections. But the purpose of this usually is to lower regulation and get tax breaks that enable these corporations to make more money. World domination is kind of an ambiguous thing with foggy characteristics. Does Jeff Bezos rule the world right now? Sorta. I guess. Does this mean you can't safely use Facebook to sell your Asteroids? No, it does not mean that. Settle down.
The more you type or click into Facebook, the more Facebook knows about you. Every comment, every click. Every piece of info identifies you a tiny bit more, in ways most people are not thinking about as they're blindly typing and posting away. Even if you just sell an Asteroids cab. Just think about that one simple case. They know your hobbies, your lifestyle, and perhaps most importantly the people you connect with, and can infer MANY other things from that. All from one post. And when they sell that information to other companies (which they do), that exposes your privacy, in ways that you have no awareness or control over, and which can be used in ways that are not in your best interests (per the examples already given).
I also don't know how informed you are on exactly how much Facebook is trading info on you with other sites. It wasn't until about 8 years ago, when FB started recommending me to people who I'd only ever had contact with through a dating site (Match.com) that I knew something was up, and I looked into it. Match was freely exchanging my info with FB, about who I was interacting with on a private dating site, without my knowledge. Sorry, no bueno.
3. To discriminate against people. I don't know exactly what your concern here is. You can't discriminate against people in America. It's illegal.
So that must be why discrimination never happens, and why there is no racial or social tension in this country.
Not sure if you've been paying attention for the last 5 years or so, being illegal doesn't stop people (or companies, or governments) from doing things.
You seem to have a very narrow idea that the only thing companies use personal info for is to 'show you ads'. And that's incredibly misinformed (which you'd be more aware of if you weren't unwilling to read up on the current state of things, and learn about what's actually being done today).
Getting rid of social media isn't going to make gay people safe in Brunei. If our government devolves into a fascist state where this sort of stuff starts happening here, it won't be the fault of the social media platform. It will be because the people here willfully accepted fascism.
Yes, by using and supporting things that allow large corporations and government entities to easily gather, exchange, and track information about them.
There's a HUGE difference between an entity like the government trying to accumulate decentralized information about you, that is spread out all over the web, and a company like Facebook, which has you inside a walled garden, and can much more easily see and collect/process/track every single action you make. (Especially when their systems are DESIGNED to keep you on the site, and interact only with other things on the site, which is something they very publicly state as one of their goals.) The difference there is enormous, and you can't compare the two, or just gloss over that difference.
Which… granted. 4. Political gerrymandering. Political parties don't need social media to gerrymander. They already have the party affiliation of every registered voter at their fingertips. This one is not a concern.
And again, your idea of gerrymandering is dated (as is your idea of 'just showing you ads' above). Gerrymandering is not what happened with Cambridge Analytica. It was a completely different political activity.
With all respect, your ideas here are about 10 years behind the times, and in order to have any kind of meaningful or informed conversation with you, you need to understand what's being done TODAY, and how things have *changed* in the last 3-4 years (as that's part of the crux of it). I can't have a 2019 conversation with someone whose ideas are from the 2000's, and who actively refuses to understand the CURRENT state of things. I might as well have this conversation with my grandmother. And she's been dead 20 years.
The fact that these platforms get subsumed and harnessed by more powerful entities is the way our society has always operated and it's what we've come to accept for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. Your grandma posting pictures of her cat on Facebook isn't going to contribute or take away from how this has always been. And companies who are using social media to harvest data are going to get this information whether anyone is on Facebook or not. Your face is on camera wherever you go now. Your credit card number is in every website you've ever bought anything from.
So your argument is basically 'that's the way it's always been, and the way it always will be, and people are going to get your information regardless.'
1) That's classic fallacious logic, otherwise known as an 'Appeal to Tradition'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
2) Again, you're missing and/or glossing over a ridiculous amount of detail and nuance, stemming from the fact that you refuse to educate yourself on the details of what's current. This has nothing to do with your grandmother posting cat pics. (But you can't appreciate what that statement even means, as you're willfully unaware of the current state of tech.)
I get why you're arguing as you are, and I see your reasoning, but I also see what you aren't aware of. (And I've tried to give you the ability to inform yourself, but you aren't willing to get up to speed.)
As a result, I'm not really interested in continuing this discussion, as it won't be productive. We will just keep talking past each other.