I do seriously care about these things, but I know I’m in a tiny minority living in a bubble that most others don’t understand or don’t care much about.
> A truly innovative product would learn from the mistakes of predecessor platforms and would focus on things like privacy, security and accessibility.
Privacy comes at a big cost to VC funded companies that have no business plan and focus on getting billions of users to profile and profit from.
Security is becoming a lost cause with each passing day. The amount of personal data leaked online dwarfs the amount of personal data not leaked online (citation needed, but this is what it appears like to lay people).
Accessibility is usually an afterthought that comes into focus after a billion (or two) users are captured to firm up valuations or when the threat of lawsuits arise in jurisdictions where that’s a possibility.
> This is our opportunity to demand more and to demand better. After all, if Clubhouse users do not demand these things from the outset, why should the policy makers whom we ask to regulate these technologies care?
Clubhouse users aren’t going to demand any of these just like Facebook users didn’t demand better from Facebook and its companies, and in the face of more abuse by the platform didn’t leave those. The revenue and profit numbers speak to the kind of addiction that these platforms manage to create and grow.
Those who care are more likely not to use Clubhouse in the first place. Yet, policy makers do need to be reminded of their duty to protect people even if said people don’t understand or don’t seem to care.
policy makers do need to be reminded of their duty to protect people even if said people don’t understand or don’t seem to care.
What's the argument for the government to care so much about privacy, if people don't? I get why we have banking protection laws. It would be extreme chaos if people's money could just disappear. But in what way is poor security and privacy practices more than a nuisance?
I think people like us weigh this problem too heavily, because 1) we want to use apps and technology like these, 2) we really care a lot about doing it securely.
But the public just doesn't care as much as us. Why should there be laws and policy just to suit our purposes?
> A truly innovative product would learn from the mistakes of predecessor platforms and would focus on things like privacy, security and accessibility.
Privacy comes at a big cost to VC funded companies that have no business plan and focus on getting billions of users to profile and profit from.
Security is becoming a lost cause with each passing day. The amount of personal data leaked online dwarfs the amount of personal data not leaked online (citation needed, but this is what it appears like to lay people).
Accessibility is usually an afterthought that comes into focus after a billion (or two) users are captured to firm up valuations or when the threat of lawsuits arise in jurisdictions where that’s a possibility.
> This is our opportunity to demand more and to demand better. After all, if Clubhouse users do not demand these things from the outset, why should the policy makers whom we ask to regulate these technologies care?
Clubhouse users aren’t going to demand any of these just like Facebook users didn’t demand better from Facebook and its companies, and in the face of more abuse by the platform didn’t leave those. The revenue and profit numbers speak to the kind of addiction that these platforms manage to create and grow.
Those who care are more likely not to use Clubhouse in the first place. Yet, policy makers do need to be reminded of their duty to protect people even if said people don’t understand or don’t seem to care.