Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Millennials Willing To Share Personal Data — For a Price

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the will-also-get-off-your-lawn-for-a-price dept.

Privacy 88

jfruh writes "The rap on the under-30 crowd is that they don't care anywhere near as much about online privacy as their elders — but that's not quite true. According to a recent study by USC's Annenberg Center for the Digital Future, millennials are just as concerned about the use of their personal data online as their elders. The difference arises when it comes to why they share that data: older users share with someone they trust, while millennials share when they perceive that there's something in it for them."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FTFY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43531309)

millennials share when they perceive that there's a penis in the bumbum for them

In other words ... (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531445)

... when we old geezers die, our tombstones won't be marked with our facebook addresses, our famous tweets, our most favorite photo we put online, our favorite song list, and so on

Re: In other words ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43531639)

If you believe in any sense of kharmatic universal happenstance, perhaps one's headstone would say

Re:In other words ... (2)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531675)

Heh. I want something like PDQ Bach's epitaph:

Here lies a man with sundry flaws
And numerous sins upon his head.
We buried him here today because,
As far as we can tell, he's dead.

Re:In other words ... (1)

They'reComingToTakeM (1091657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43534361)

I prefer Spike Milligan's "I told you I was ill."

In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43535365)

People are getting dumber - we already knew that:

If I think there's something in it for me (undoubtedly short-term fiscal benefit or some other trivial short-term-gain), I would give up my privacy for the long term screwing I'm going to get then it's used as a precedent against me. It's nothing we didn't already know about "generation z"

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43532027)

of course.. millennials:

1. have entitlement complexes the size of jupiter. They think they're owed money/attention/respect because they exist, and that it's a-ok to procreate and then have the taxpayer fund their babies, college educations, and consumer electronics. They have no respect for personal property of others or understand the concept of earning that respect in the first place.

2. have no concept of privacy and think that simple consensus is all that's necessary to justify anything. When the police state is in full force, you can bet that it'll be millennials who form the cultural backbone. Rebels can bet if anyone informs on them, it'll be a millennial who "has nothing to hide."

3. are firm believers in identity politics, which is the ultimate expression of groupthink psychodynamics.

Re:FTFY (3, Insightful)

Sentrion (964745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43532581)

Similar words have been spoken of Baby Boomers and Generation X by the generations that preceded them. For every meth smokin', Wall-Street Occupyin', Tweeting Millenial, there is a brave, young, volunteer soldier and firefighter, putting the needs of his community and his family above his own, desparately struggingly to make ends meet while being berated and dismissed by a grumpy ex-hippy ticked off that the money he didn't earn with his stock picks in the roaring 90's won't buy him the private island he was planning to sail off to in his yacht.

Re:FTFY (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43532737)

Gen X may have accidentally given birth to hipsters with our habits of ironic commentary (sorry about that one, guys), but the standard insult against us is that everyone was a Slacker [imdb.com] . Entitled? We figured we'd all be annihilated by nukes.

There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43531321)

Except being made into a product sold to advertisers. Facebook, Twitter, etc. they're all scams. They just scam you for data, rather than money.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531357)

Exactly. Access to a service or a social network is not "something in it for them". In fact, even if someone is willing to pay for your data, you shouldn't be willing to do that and it's hard to even accept that as "something in it for them".

Worse, this article says they're smarter about it , yet the reasons they give for sharing information by these twits are "for coupons and local deals" and "in exchange for targeted advertising" those two things are the same thing, obviously) and... Well, actually, those are the only reasons the article gives. What as shitty, meaningless, irrelevant article. It's literally just an infographic full of information from which the author has derived the most absurd conclusion.

"Teens are smarter about privacy, because they don't care about their privacy as long as it's being used for something in their benifit... like advertise to them".

I give up. Fuck it.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531389)

Addendum: I forgot to mention that creating multiple online personas and putting in occasionally fake information doesn't make them "smarter about it". Haven't we all learned, by now, that your identity can be derived by advertisers with only a few minimal pieces of data? Just because you're using a different username and email address at a site or to register for something doesn't mean *shit*.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (2743031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531433)

It would have been interesting if you created a new account and posted this comment from it.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43531653)

Actually on that front you somewhat undermine your argument. Advertisers can derive your identity without you having ever signed up for a social network. Tracking cookies and IP address are enough to get a general idea, and at *some* point an identity connection can be established, unless you are *extremely* diligent (to the point of tin foil hat paranoia) and never buy anything online, ever.

So essentially, these people are giving away their personal information in exchange for a benefit, as opposed to pretending they're not and getting nothing.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43532145)

I only buy things using linux live cds and encrypted dns and then I release my ip address and get a new one.

the only connections to be made are email(disposable) and cc info (gift card). and, the fact that I send it to my home address. Wait.

Oh...shit.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43533899)

If they are so good at it, why am I getting ads for stuff I would never ever buy?

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43532249)

It comes down to TINSTAAFL and the question is simply how you are gonna pay and what you are getting for it. If using FB and Twitter is enough of a "payment" for you to give them all your personal info? I have NO problem with that as long as you know what you are paying and realize that you ARE paying for it, you are just paying for it with data instead of dollars.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (2)

Kozz (7764) | about a year and a half ago | (#43532567)

It comes down to TINSTAAFL ...

Really? TINSTAAFL? Some kind of grammar nazi...

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43534365)

Some use is, some use ain't, the statement is the same either way and if one was gonna be a grammar nazi you think you'd be bitching about using ain't, although as a southerner I ain't got a problem with that word ;-)

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

Kozz (7764) | about a year and a half ago | (#43537547)

I was shooting for funny/ironic, though I admit I may have miscalculated.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43540915)

Well we southerners constantly get slapped upside the head by grammar nazis bitchin' about using ain't so most of us don't use it when we type. Of course i would say that in itself is ironic since most dictionaries recognize ain't as a word so all those years of getting slapped upside the head by teachers fur nuthin ;-)

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (4, Insightful)

crazycheetah (1416001) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531519)

Article didn't go into it, but I think of it more like this some times:

Google is probably the biggest one for me. They take my personal information and show me ads that I always ignore but which are targeted specifically at me. In exchange, they give me loads of tools that I don't have to pay them for at all (Gmail, Drive/Docs, Search, Calendar, free place to upload and stream my music on practically any device I own, Android to an extent, etc.).

So, yeah, technically, all I'm getting from it is targeted advertising, maybe a few deals I wouldn't have found otherwise. But in reality, the money they're making off of getting targeted advertising done is paying for all of these tools that I don't pay any real cash for. In my eyes, I'm trading my personal information for those tools, and I couldn't care less about the advertising. Essentially, my personal information is a valuable currency that I never run out of. It's just limited in where it's accepted, and it requires a little more discretion in where I do want to use it than other currencies.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43532473)

I am GP.
I am 19.

None of my friends who use social networks even understand what it is they're giving up. I would go so far as to say that they avoid taking that red pill, lest they encounter the cognitive dissonance that comes from a corporation's computers knowing you're gay or depressed or having an affair before your friends and family do. They are being effectively scammed into revealing some very, very personal details without realizing it in exchange for trivial bullshit like photo sharing and Farmville.

How is that not a scam? I'm delighted to hear why.

For the record, I only use three data-financed services: Google search, email, and RSS reader. I only log in for as long as it takes to use email and reader and then I log out.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43532757)

Unless you're a Tor user, that's enough. You think they don't log your IP?

If you have something you want to keep private, go to the library and look it up in the stacks. Otherwise, don't bother. I don't discuss anything that I would be embarrassed to see in the newspaper on email, text, or chat. Voice only. (Not that the FBI/CIA don't monitor that, but there won't be recordings.)

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43536627)

Google blocks Tor users, you inconspicuous clod!

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43539291)

Of course they do, they're only in it for the money, and there's no money tracking anonymous proxies is there?
 

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

Sentrion (964745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43533125)

Perhaps the greatest danger is the illusion of privacy. Or the false comfort that "they're a big corporation...they would never stoop so low as to scam me." Along with computer literacy, every person should take at least a short course in social engineering to understand how groups and individuals can be so easily manipulated to give away critical information that can lead to identity theft and account hijacking. Just following the history of Facebook it is easy to see how easily people can cause irreversable harm to themselves. Facebook has unilaterally changed privacy settings on multiple occasions only to inform users of the changes after they went into effect. People with photos they thought were private suddenly become publicly viewable. The last straw for me as a Facebook user was when I was asked for my phone number so they could verify my identity in case I was ever locked out of my account. No mention was made that my phone number could be entered into their search tool to look up my Facebook page (and name, and friends, etc.). I just happened to stumble on the news story about this fact, otherwise I still wouldn't know today.

The crazy thing is that I have no use for Facebook, but when family members, friends, coworkers, and business acquaintences ask for your Facebook credentials so they can 'friend' you, you either make sure you are signed up or you reply that you don't use Facebook, which then leaves them with the impression that you don't do social networking, which means that you are not sociable, or worse - that you are some sort of paranoid schizo, afraid of technology, and/or lacking in technological savvy. The end result for myself, and many others I'm sure, is that I do have a Facebook account with my real first and last name, and accept 'friends' from certain friends, family, and business associates, but that is all the business I do with Facebook, of which I do relunctantly. But showing my network of friends and business associates how many hours I play Farmville (ugh!), or letting some Facebook app post some embarrassing 'pic-of-the-day' automatically just doesn't seem like a smart move.

Unfortunately I fear that the trend will soon be to recruit users like zombies to force others to participate more directly with information whoring services like Facebook. Before long there will be an app to find out who is active on Facebook and who is just using it like an online address book - and some guru will be advising potential employers not to hire those sticks-in-the-mud who aren't expressing personal opions and clicking "like" on at least ten items each week.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

crazycheetah (1416001) | about a year and a half ago | (#43534185)

I can see where you're coming from.

1. I feel sorry, on some level, for the people who are not aware of the personal data that they are leaving open, because they are ignoring a valuable asset that they have in that data. At the same time, however, they are taking advantage of that asset, whether they realize it or not.

2. Personally, I am aware of the asset that my data is, and I'm aware of how I'm sharing that asset. I'm aware of how these corporations are utilizing my "very, very personal details" and I've come to terms with it.

3. Personally, I'm actually really open with Facebook and Google, primarily (slashdot is in this on some level as well, but I don't post on slashdot near as much as I do elsewhere, just because I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, the majority of the time--sometimes, that does change and I get in a posting mood, like this; I do make a point to post on slashdot occasionally, because I see that as me giving them my data in exchange for them providing me the tool that slashdot is for me). I do so realizing what I'm doing, however. I realize that when I get into a debate on Facebook that reveals particularly personal information about me, or when I search Google for particularly personal details, or when I visit a website that reveals particularly personal details about me, that I am sharing this data about me. However, I see that as my payment for the service that is provided for me.

For instance, I'm active in poetry/spoken word. Typically, I pay $5 for 2 hours of a forum to share/hear poetry/spoken word. Rather than paying $5 for 2 hours on the forums that the internet provides me (namely Facebook and Google, again), I'm providing them data about me. These companies turn around and make that data into money. I'm fully aware of this happening, and have accepted it as me utilizing the asset that is my personal data in the form of indirect money from a third party source.

This does not create an issue for me, because I'm aware of it, I accept it, and I make the educated decision to trade my data for a service. It sounds like you would rather not provide that data for that service. I can understand that. However, I value the service, and I see it is an acceptable trade. They make their money off of my data, and I get the service that I desire in exchange.

I think it comes down to different mindsets about the matter. I see my personal data as an asset that I am willing to trade for a service that I see as valuable to me. You (correct me if I'm wrong on this) see your personal data as an asset to protect. Personally, I think both of those mindsets are valid and worth consideration.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43535137)

the cognitive dissonance that comes from a corporation's computers knowing you're gay or depressed or having an affair before your friends and family do

And what exactly is a corporation going to do with that information? Blackmail you? Target ads for musicals, the Samaritans and Interflora at you?

Who really cares?

There is a simple solution if you're really that bothered about privacy in the internet age: don't use the internet. It's not compulsory.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

tburkhol (121842) | about a year and a half ago | (#43535241)

the cognitive dissonance that comes from a corporation's computers knowing you're gay or depressed or having an affair before your friends and family do

And what exactly is a corporation going to do with that information? Blackmail you?

Well, they might tell the FBI that you live near Memphis and like the phrase "I'm KC and I approve this message." Those seem like pretty innocuous bits of information: a non-specific geographical location, two initials, and a sense of humor that includes mocking political disclosure laws. This weekend, that convergence of information was enough to win a free vacation with dramatic Federal interrogation and evening news appearances. Probably not what anyone had in mind when sharing that information.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43539373)

The correct solution to that nonsense is to get the fucking government under control.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

jonfr (888673) | about a year and a half ago | (#43532511)

But you are paying for it. Your payment is the advertisement that you are being served. It is easy to mistake that for "free" while it is not. Nothing is free (in reality) and we all pay for the services we get in one way or the other. The most common approach to do this is with advertisements, rather then subscriptions or paywalls.

Yes, you also pay for slashdot. Both with advertisement and subscription (optional) charges.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

crazycheetah (1416001) | about a year and a half ago | (#43534197)

Agreed. In the sense of this, I see my more direct payment to be my data. Most ads these days are based on personal data I have provided by visiting certain sites, posting certain things, etc. That's valuable data to advertising agencies on the internet. I'm providing them said data in exchange for the service that they provide. So, yes, it is not free. However, I'm not directly paying money for it, which provides the illusion of free to someone who's not aware of how they are paying for it. Being aware of this exchange of values, however, I can recognize what I'm paying for the service I'm being provided in the form of data, and I can make the conscious decision whether or not I want to pay what is being requested.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43535209)

It makes no difference to me whether ads I am forced to watch are targeted at me through detailed analysis of personal data, or just random. I ignore them anyway. If I want to buy something, I will go and find out about it myself.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43535333)

Those advertisers wouldn't be willing to pay for the information unless targeted ads were substantially more effective. ie: the advertiser's cost is your personal information, their reward is increased sales. Both of those have a real, dollar value to the advertiser, where the online cost and reward to you is nebulous and non-cash. In order for the advertiser to realize his cash reward, you have to get your wallet out and spend money on their products. You have to buy something you would otherwise not have bought. You may be very happy to have done so, because it makes you favorite pastime more fun, or cures your genital warts, or just looks so damn good with your red hair. So, you're giving up your personal information in exchange for Google services and FB networking, but the only reason your personal information has value is that Barker/DZP can use that information to make you buy things.

You're paying for Google services as part of the dollar cost of the things advertised to you on Google.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

crazycheetah (1416001) | about a year and a half ago | (#43539833)

Exactly. That's why I specifically chose to say "directly".

In my case, it tends to be more along the lines of those ads some times make it easier for me to find what I'm looking for. I may have bought said something either way (often do), but they were often able to point me in a direction that makes finding that easier or some times just the better deal. Result is that they do get my money, funding their advertising, which funds the tools that give an illusion of being free. So, I'm not directly paying for those "free" tools directly, except through my personal data. Indirectly, I am paying for it with money, through the companies I ultimately decide to spend my money at that have gotten their ads targeted to me.

Beyond that, my data, when combined with other people's data to make statistically significant conclusions, has a value to advertising beyond just me eventually paying. In a sense, I'm helping the advertisers target everyone more effectively--or perhaps, figure out how to better target a specific demographic, or anything like that. I think of a store I remember hearing about that by looking at compilations of data, they were able to figure out that certain buying habits statistically meant specific things. They found they could some times predict a women being pregnant before she even knew, for instance. Which helps them target anyone fitting the demographic of those buying habits, and helps them help those demographics buy things.

Basically, by trading my personal data, I'm helping companies help me buy from them, and I'm helping companies help others buy from them. It's not a direct end in itself, as there are steps before it gets to the end, but it could be said that by trading my personal data, I'm potentially helping the economy become more effective. Again, that's simplifying what is really a more complicated process, but it's an interesting way to think of this.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43535173)

Yes, you also pay for slashdot. Both with advertisement and subscription (optional) charges.

I don't see ads on slashdot and I most certainly don't pay a subscription. All I have "paid" is to give them my email address, and if I was that paranoid I could just have used a throwaway yahoo account or something anyway.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43532017)

>

"Teens are smarter about privacy, because they don't care about their privacy as long as it's being used for something in their benifit... like advertise to them".

I give up. Fuck it.

That can also imply the reverse.

"Teens are feeble minded about privacy, because they don't care about their privacy as long as it's being used for something in their benifit... like advertise to them"
"Teens are inept about privacy, because they don't care about their privacy as long as it's being used for something in their benifit... like advertise to them"
"Teens are inexperienced about privacy, because they don't care about their privacy as long as it's being used for something in their benifit... like advertise to them"
"Teens are carefree about privacy, because they don't care about their privacy as long as it's being used for something in their benifit... like advertise to them"
"Teens are obtuse about privacy, because they don't care about their privacy as long as it's being used for something in their benifit... like advertise to them"
"Teens are imperceptive about privacy, because they don't care about their privacy as long as it's being used for something in their benifit... like advertise to them"
"Teens are apathetic about privacy, because they don't care about their privacy as long as it's being used for something in their benifit... like advertise to them"

Those make much better sense.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531387)

You are looking at it completely wrong. There is something in it for them, something that they very clearly value. They can post stuff on walls, get followers and all the other shit that comes with these social media accounts. Personally, I find it utterly ingenious that companies like these have made something completely intagible into a very prized commodity.

And going on your statement, the users have weighed up the pro's and con's and decided that being turned into a product is worth the price of some privacy. Sure, most of them don't know how much they have actually given up, but that's their problem.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531423)

I remember the article a few years ago where high school students took a poll which showed they generally feel there is too much free speech, press should be regulated by government, etc. Then, you have many going around saying things like "well, we have to give up some liberties for safety". And . . . well, none of this should surprise any of us.

We are destined to lose our freedom and our civil liberties. It is unavoidable. Every generation of children are raised in a society just a little less free than the prior one. For instance, young adults in 2013 don't know of a world without a TSA or a world where you didn't have to show your ID before boarding a domestic flight or a world where they weren't fear-mongered with threats of terror every single day. The things that have occurred in the last twenty years that repulse us about infringements on every citizen's rights are things which are just "every day life" and "normal" for young adults, today. Kids born today will know nothing of a world when there weren't cameras constantly monitoring and archiving their every move or drones in every city minding the behavior of citizens.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43532917)

You say it like its a bad thing.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43533219)

The idea that history is cyclic is not new, in fact it is one of the foundations of communism.eventually our descendants will trade away the last of their freedoms and once things get bad they will realize they made a mistake. Then their descendants will have a bloody upheaval and freedom will be restored at least for awhile.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43533639)

There will be no "bloody upheaval" when every square inch of civilization is covered with covert mass surveillance. Resistance movements take years to build. One snitch and it's dead.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (2)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43533507)

We are destined to lose our freedom and our civil liberties. It is unavoidable.

"Can't win, don't try. Got it."

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43535225)

Every generation of children are raised in a society just a little less free than the prior one

My solution is simple: we should destroy all technological and scientific knowledge acquired after about 1400 AD and go back to a feudal system. With me as king, obviously.

I feel like exercising my droit de seigneur on a naked, petrified Natalie Portman covered in hot grits right now.

It all depends on what you mean by freedom.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

ToadProphet (1148333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531451)

You are looking at it completely wrong.

Actually, GP isn't. If you look at the survey, it's things like 'trading personal information for more relevant advertising' or 'deals for nearby businesses'. In other words, giving away privacy for coupons.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531793)

Your comment is actually supporting my position. You and I might not think that targetted advertising is worth trading for all your privacy, but apparently these folks do - so it sort of means that the GP is looking at it wrong. There is a perceived benefit which is being traded for privacy.

I personally hate coupons, advertising and prefer to keep my privacy, but apparently I am in the minority.

I don't think there is anything in it for you... and there is nothing in it for you... are not the same thing.

One man's trash is another's treasure.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43532575)

See: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3678795&cid=43532473 for my rebuttal.

To clarify: the way Facebook works is like paying 10 dollars for a trinket that really charges your bank account 1000 dollars, and then never being informed of the difference by the person selling it.

Go ahead, ask any university student how much he thinks Facebook knows about him. You'll have to laugh or cry when you hear the response.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43532945)

I totally agree with you on all but one point. The end users see *some* value in giving away all their privacy. They might not understand what the consequences are, but they are agreeing to give it away.

I don't use facbook or other social media as such, I find it a pointless waste of time, I don't care who just did a really great big poo, or who went out to where, or what sad fuck is sad right now - but a lot of my friends do - and they seem to be happy to have access to all that stuff in exchange for those providers having all their personal information.

One day, all those fucks will come to me and ask me to make it all better, to clean up the mess they have made, and I will say... No. (Bonus points for getting the reference) - that's really my approach to them. Let them have their fun now, they will pay for it later.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43535239)

I don't care who just did a really great big poo

Not even if it's Miley Cyrus?

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43534889)

I wonder how much of this has more to do with economics than age. To a well-over-35 type like me, who makes plenty of money and really doesn't give a shit about saving £2 on a pizza, the idea of someone tracking my location or browsing habits in order to advertise unwanted crap to me annoys me nearly to the point of physical violence, if only I could get my hands on the spamming twat. To a struggling, underemployed 20-something with a student loan, though, maybe those location-specific coupons or deals actually make a difference.

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43538363)

That's not it, but you're sort of on the right track: Your generation is mostly out of the dating game. Gen. Y'ers have to date, and it's practically impossible without Facebook. Ask any of them, they'll tell you that there are only two types of people not on Facebook: Rampant cheaters and giant weirdos (privacy advocates).

"If you ain't on Facebook and BBM, you ain't nobody. It's no joke." - ~20yo friend of mine

Re:There's Nothing in it For You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43535441)

Actually, GP isn't. If you look at the survey, it's things like 'trading personal information for more relevant advertising' or 'deals for nearby businesses'. In other words, giving away privacy for coupons.

This is how you can tell TFA is a shill. Targeted advertising is not a benefit: targeted advertising is the cost. Targeted ads are more effective, which means better able to make you buy something you would otherwise not buy. You wouldn't buy it if you didn't want it, and no one is going to twist your arm or hold your data hostage until you buy. Advertising works, though. And it works better if they can craft a message more specifically to your psychology and more easily target your wants to their product. You may think you're immune to advertising, but advertising works.

not old enough!? (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531359)

the phrase "thank you sir may I have another" has no meaning. they too will learn :) and get off my lawn

Re:not old enough!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43532477)

Evidence that millennials are idiots.

Re:not old enough!? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43533581)

What I find amusing is that TFA characterized them as doing it "smarter", but I don't see any evidence of that. On the contrary.

To be honest with you, when they make that trade, because there is "something in it for them", I think they often make bad decisions, because they don't fully understand what they are giving up in exchange.

If they keep that up, they will regret it later.

Under 25 (4, Interesting)

Zaelath (2588189) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531439)

I'd say you need them under 25, since science keeps proving my theory that they're still children until 25+

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/adolescent_brain/Development/prefrontal_cortex/index.html [hhs.gov]

This brain region gives an individual the capacity to exercise “good judgment” when presented with difficult life situations. Brain research indicating that brain development is not complete until near the age of 25, refers specifically to the development of the prefrontal cortex.

Seems though that once they're used to being Facebook's bitch, they can age to any level and post justify their adolescent actions. As many on this thread will no doubt show.

Re:Under 25 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43532327)

congrats on attempting to redefine a social construct post hoc and then claim that you've proved something
are you going to "prove" the meaning of post-modernism next?

Re:Under 25 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43534321)

Alternatively, the conclusion is that you're an adult until you're 25, and then you become an old geezer.

Re:Under 25 (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43535247)

Women don't grow out of adolescence mentally until about 25. Men never do.

Re:Under 25 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43537507)

Clearly we should take away the alcohol rights of everyone ages 21-24.

What's that about giving them government-issues guns as cops/soldiers at 18? I can't hear you. Lalalalala that's fine, just drinking age thank you.

Semantics! (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531489)

The older crowd will share info with people they trust, and the millenials when they can turn a buck. I don't see the difference, really -- the only variable is the currency. Trust relationships are also based on a give-take, but it's implicit. In the latter case, the relationship is an explicit give-take. So what this comes down to is exaggerating the differences between two groups -- and gee, go figure... news agencies thrive on creating differences where none exist in order to generate a story.

14% is very significant (2)

Burz (138833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531877)

If that eventually translates into 14% growth in profits for themselves, then ad agencies will no doubt try to exploit and encourage the difference.

Re:Semantics! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43534323)

... relationship is an explicit give-take

No millenials are in an implicit relationship: You are the person I want you to be. The anonymity of the net means a disconnect in the trust relationship for many older netizens. For younger netizens, it means assuming the communique comes with rainbows and unicorns.

it's more about the eternal september (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43531537)

There's nothing about "social media" that we weren't doing for decades before that without Facebook and MySpace. We were talking to our friends online, planning events, and more, but without putting some for-profit advertising company in the middle between us and our friends. Shit, some of us were doing this in the early 80's, on the actual internet, not AOL or some walled garden.

I don't blame this trend on the "Millennials" so much as I do on general ignorance and the utter and total lack of technical literacy that became the new-normal after the dawn of the Eternal September. I really believe that we wouldn't be in this fucked up mess of a place if people had used better judgment. Younger folks don't seem any dumber than older folks, but that's weak praise indeed.

You get what you deserve, they say. We are datamined to hell because that's what we asked for.

Re:it's more about the eternal september (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531789)

Shit, some of us were doing this in the early 80's, on the actual internet, not AOL or some walled garden.

And some of us were doing it in the '60s and '70s in the pub or at the beach. Maybe it's time for a Campaign For Real Life, and let the advertisers try to sell their crap to the void...

i'm in the group that only shares personal data (2)

mark_reh (2015546) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531577)

in exchange for sex.

Re:i'm in the group that only shares personal data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43533837)

in exchange for sex.

Me too. I'm not going to listen to someone's life story and petty secrets unless they'll sleep with me in return.

Re:i'm in the group that only shares personal data (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43535065)

in exchange for sex.

Spoken like a true virgin.

Re:i'm in the group that only shares personal data (1)

knarf (34928) | about a year and a half ago | (#43535715)

Sorry to break your fantasy but that type of personal data is shared on every breath you take, every move you make. From exhaled aerosols through skin flakes, hair loss and nose droppings. By the time you're geared up (or -down) for having sex you've shared enough to create an army of clones.

Millenials? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#43531599)

Is that like a weed that I can use RoundUp on? Maybe some Landmaster?

Re:Millenials? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43531627)

Is that like a weed that I can use RoundUp on? Maybe some Landmaster?

No, good old fashioned bleach works just fine.

Now, if I can just remember where the hell that gene pool is...

Re:Millenials? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#43532481)

"The problem with the gene pool is that there's no lifeguard." - David Gerrold

Re:Millenials? (1)

mill3d (1647417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43537229)

"The problem with the gene pool is that there are too many lifeguards."

FTFY.

Easy to remember (4, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#43532135)

Look, it's really easy to remember how things work, and it really doesn't matter what the market is. All you have to is remember one very simple thing and you will have a clue.

If your not paying for the product, you are the product.

Re:Easy to remember (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43534123)

These days, you're the product even if you pay.

Re:Easy to remember (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43534625)

So when the Doctor put 2 pins in my ankle last month saving me from a life of being cripple, free of charge, how exactly was I the product?

Re:Easy to remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43535255)

So when the Doctor put 2 pins in my ankle last month saving me from a life of being cripple, free of charge, how exactly was I the product?

It wasn't free of charge kid, someone paid for it. If the doctor did it as charity, then he paid for it. If it was charged against an insurance company, you and a bunch of other people paid for it with premiums. If the government paid the doctor to do it, then someone's taxes paid for it. Just because you didn't witness the money change hands, does not mean it was "free."

"There's no such thing as a free lunch." One of the Universe's greatest truths, so learn it young.

Re:Easy to remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43535979)

-1 for a legit question?

Sorry you don't get free health care.

The point still stands.

What a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43532151)

More shocking news from the self-gratification generation...

children of cutbacks in education standards = mill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43532819)

thats it... all I have to say.

At last (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about a year and a half ago | (#43533105)

At last a way to cash in on my multiple personality disorder, we've hit paydirt.

Greed is ever-increasing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43533897)

Film at 11.

What the fuck's a millenial? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43535059)

Someone born since 2000?

Who gives a twopenny toss about what a bunch of children think? They'll change their minds when they've grown up a bit anyway.

Re:What the fuck's a millenial? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43538305)

It's a synonym for Generation Y.

kick them in the nuts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43535467)

after all the BS i have put myself through over the last decade for our so-called "internet privacy"

I suggest kicking your kids in the balls if they even mention something akin.

What no one has said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43535641)

No one has bothered to even mention blocking ads and using tools like Ghostery and killfiles/hosts files to deal with the issue.

As a Linux user, I've got all kinds of cool tricks I can pull to minimize my exposure to data collection. One trick I use is to write Flash and LSO cookies to /dev/null

rm -rf .adobe .macromedia
ln -s /dev/null .adobe
ln -s /dev/null .macromedia

I also disallow HTTP/S referer, CSS visited link history, geo location, HTTP prefetch, DOM storage, and allow cookies and scripting on a site basis.

I pay my ISP to use the Internet. I'm not paying with my data. Personally, I don't have one social media account. I don't need them. They will never be required for employment or even employment consideration. That would violate federal law.

Blocking ads and data collection is a duty, not an option. If a company's business model is tracking people for money, they need to find a new business model. Advertising is not a good business model unless you're an ad company. Even then, I'm going to block all ads and tracking technologies because I pay to enjoy a clean Internet experience. Everyone deserves a clean, ad-free Internet experience.

I'm very surprised no one has developed or forked an open source browser to block all of this stuff by default. It needs to be offered.

Corporate propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43535707)

Center for the Digital Future has a long list of corporate partners:
http://www.digitalcenter.org/our-partners/ [digitalcenter.org]

The other study sponsor is Bovitzinc.com. Their slogan:
"We are a full-service design-driven research and strategy firm that helps organizations uncover opportunity and drive innovation."

That gobbledygook seems to say that Bovitz is a marketing company.

The article detailing the study is comprised of unremarkable statistics (70% vs 77% want their data private, for example) that show a minor difference in privacy attitudes between generations. The statistics are interspersed with severely biased and misleading interpretations by "experts" who define younger people as more up-to-date and older people as unrealistic.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?