Diffusion and the Privacy Paradox
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/01/20/why-we-need-federal-data-privacy-law/2803896001/
Last semester I wrote a paper (attached) about the privacy paradox and whether or not social norms dictate the use of corporate surveillance. The paper discussed how perfectly educated people continue to use technology even though they are aware that they are losing dangerous amounts of privacy, and why companies can get away with invasive surveillance systems. Additionally, the paper discusses how different countries approach technology law, and how that dynamic is an excellent example of cultural diffusion. In my opinion, the answer to all of these questions can be adequately discussed with diffusion and cascades.
Why do we use technology that we know might not be good for us? We had a number of questions in class that had us calculate how many and which nodes would need to change their opinion in order to start a cascade. This reminded me of the technology predicament that many teenagers find themselves in. Not only are Apple products often more popular than Android products, but Apple products also almost exclusively interact with other Apple products, so being the one kid with the Android product is never a good time. If a child’s parents use Android products, and the child grew up familiar with Android products, how many Apple product friends would a child need to have to get him to go against the family grain, and beg his parents for an iPhone? And furthermore, as all of those children get older, why are they increasingly laidback when it comes to privacy on their devices? This is because privacy policies are a condition of ownership of any device, and when one uses a device, one is consenting to whatever privacy policy related to the device. This comes into play explicitly on the social level. If everyone in one’s friend group is using the same social media site, what is the opportunity cost of one person opting out for the sake of privacy? If one’s entire network is on that site, and that is how those friends bond and keep in touch, how realistic would it be that this individual would continue to be as close friends with that group if they didn’t participate? And if that one person decides to opt out, how realistic would it be to assume that their choice would influence the choices of the others in the group? Similarly to class assignments, the chances of that depend on the number of people in the group and the strength of relationships between the different members. Most people are willing to give up technological privacy in order to maintain their positions in the networks that they belong to.
Aside from implications on the social level, there are also major implications on the professional level. Why can employers so easily implement invasive technology for their employees? Along with the growth of technology, employers have begun to use technological innovation to keep track of their employees, and better organize their workplace. As harmless as this sounds, it has more often than not led to employers tracking the movement, exercise, eating habits, health history, and productivity with trackers, video cameras, and motion sensors. Many of these technological fixes to what employers see as workplace issues are grossly invasive, but because these technologies are new, and there are few laws regulating these issues, most employees are left defenseless against the big companies that employ them. The most common response to someone complaining about being unhappy where they work, is to simply find a new job. This is futile, however, because at this point, almost all employers have the same privacy clauses in their employment contracts. Just as it is difficult for one friend’s choice to convince everyone else to change their opinion, it is even more difficult to escape a network that one is entirely engulfed by. And to take this point further, even if one company decided to go against the grain and not breach the privacy of their employees, they would probably not be as competitive as others in their industry that are using these technologies to their advantage. The competitive aspect to this network makes it even more difficult for even a partial cascade to occur, as one company changing positions tends to increase the relative success of others in the network, not decrease it.
We also discussed partial cascades, and whether or not independent clusters could exist, and avoid the cascade that everyone else gets washed into. Cultural Diffusion in terms of the workplace relates closely to workplace privacy, and the practical implications of partial cascades. My paper looked at this issue by comparing China’s approach to workplace privacy to the West’s approach. Even though Western countries tend to allow invasive workplace technologies, the general public is fiercely obsessed with independence, and invasive technologies, although invasive, are not usually at the same level as those in China. Chinese culture has no expectation of privacy, so workplace technologies operate in line with those expectations, and often control their populations to a level that would be scary to western populations. With globalization, and a growing number of Multinational Corporations, experts warn about the consequences of being ignorant about these cultural differences. These companies are creating global influences in various countries, and the locals working there will be influenced by the cultural values being brought in. The cascade of technological freedom spanned most of the globe but not all of it. There are a number of countries that have managed to isolate themselves in a way that rejects this cascade, and remain independent in their values. If a node doesn’t have enough connections to nodes that are adopting new ideas, there is no reason for that node to adopt new ideas as well.
In my opinion, the best way to approach change in networks is to approach networks as I used to when organizing charity events in middle and high school. The first event I organized was in 8th grade, and all of the teachers I knew warned me that I would not be able to get many people to come if I opened it up to students of all grades (6th, 7th, and 8th). The backbone of the difficulty with getting students to show up was that the school was very cliquey, and friend groups traveled very strictly together. Therefore, putting up flyers and talking to people outside of my immediate group wouldn’t attract a large crowd- I had to recruit the strongest members of each friend group to agree to come, which pulled all of the others to join as well. I defined the strongest member of the group as the member that had the largest number of strong connections within the group. That way, that individual’s decision would be more likely to persuade at least a few other members of the group. After that, those that hadn’t been persuaded by the individual’s decision, are now more likely to go because a larger percentage of people in their network are going, which will pass the threshold for which one would need to be convinced. I used this tactic all of the way through high school, and I was almost always successful. I think this strategy can be, and often is, used to create larger change in larger networks. Instead of thinking of the strongest member of the friend group, think about it in terms of the most influential individuals and companies. It is almost impossible to create legitimate change by convincing random individuals to change their opinion, more realistic instigators of change would be celebrities or massive mainstream companies. If one can convince a few leading companies in one industry to go green, for instance, the rest of the members of the industry will be more inclined follow suit. Or, if an entrepreneur is introducing a new health fad, convincing key individuals in the public eye to praise their product will increase their chances of a cascade. The trick, however, is to diversify the key individuals and companies. It is significantly less effective to target many individuals in one sector of the population or industry. Depending on what kind of change you’re trying to instigate, or what kind of cascade you’re trying to trigger, one can use the dynamics of networks to create the type of change or cascade that is intended.