The challenge as I see it is to understand that consent is something that we inadvertently give each time we tap into an application. I would argue then it is a constant state of becoming more informed. In an ever changing world, with goals forever moving, it is a case where we can never quite be fully informed.
One of the issues with this is the danger to be black and white with such conversations. I recently read a piece the discussed the problem with science research being one of narrative, rather than just explaining the facts. I think that the same applies for discussions around surveillance capitalism.
Although people like Douglas Rushkoff have raised concern about narrative and storytelling, I feel that until we have different people talking about the topic it is not going to go anywhere.
I think it’s not necessarily different people as much as more people – which will by definition get different people.
As good as Doug is … his readership will be of a certain kind.
As he advises in chapter 100 … ‘find others’
As I say – it is incumbent on us all.
Thanks Aaron, some useful thoughts and links in that comment. I’ve noticed over here a change in mood from Facebook, Google, etc. being ‘cool’ to them being just big companies that we have to deal with. I think that swing might have a knock-on effect in the type of legislation that people have an appetite for, too.