Clearly, there have been very desirable outcomes for most people using these services. Otherwise, no one would use them. I don't think the short-term vs long-term tipping point has been reached quite yet.
My problem is that the "collective" would vote in favor of their new corporate overlords and retort "what undesirable outcomes?"
While you and I fear the power corporations like Google have amassed through surveillance, most people don't, and I'm afraid they won't until they get burned.
Sounds like just-world fallacy. There's plenty of examples of people who take actions that do not lead to desirable outcomes. The idea that people choosing something in itself proves its value is nonsense.
I should have been clearer. I'm terrified of the power corporation's have amassed through surveillance, but no one I know outside of the tech community sees a problem. Most see Google and Facebook as "benevolent overlords"[0]. How can we convince people that danger lurks in the future given their love affair with the free, life-changing services of the "benevolent?"
[0]: Quote from my roommate at Duke: "I, for one, welcome our benevolent overlords."
I'd bet the majority of people have no clue exactly how much data they collect, how much other info they're able to derive from that, and what they do with it. If you described what they're actually doing as a hypothetical, I bet many of those people would assume it's already illegal, because much of it sure smells like something that ought to be illegal.
On the positive side, I can report that I know many people completely outside of tech who are extremely concerned about these problems. They tend to be older generation incidentally…
I'd say what's described in the post is an undesirable outcome.
"Otherwise, no one would use them."
Cigarette smokers also find value in what they do (opportunity to contemplate, enjoyment, socialize) - yet the cost (for the individual and the society at large) is much bigger than the benefit. So just looking at the perceived value alone is not the best measure to evaluate the overall impact.
While I'm personally all for regulating data use, I don’t see any negative outcomes presented in this opinion. Just a lot of empty, fiery attacks at Surveillance Capitalists who have apparently “robbed us of our welfare, agency, and freedom.”
Even the premise of the piece, that “we've lost control of our personal data”, isn’t a negative outcome. It's a restatement of the problem: people give away their short-sightedly in exchange for services.
And this gets to my point precisely. Collectively, we're still very distant from the pains of corporate surveillance. The clearest violation I know of is employee data abuse but that noise died ~2010.[0][1] I feel the chilling effects of social media the most--worrying that someone will record me acting like a fool at a party--but frankly, that's something the internet we champion still facilitates. Nothing stops my friend from posting that video on his personal blog. Maybe polarization due to filter bubbles? Still, I've got a hunch people have always consumed info inline with their beliefs and mingled with the like-minded. Also, I'm not sure how a democratized internet is supposed to handle the spread of misinformation and shady political advertising.
Clearly, there have been very desirable outcomes for most people using these services. Otherwise, no one would use them. I don't think the short-term vs long-term tipping point has been reached quite yet.