Request for thoughts on today's Topic (4/7)
Added 2015-04-07 18:15:21 +0000 UTCOn today's DTNS Patrick and I are going to talk more about John Oliver's interview of Snowden and his way of making surveillance issues relevant. How do you think we can make tech issues, especially major ones, palatable to the general public?
Comments
First get them to listen. Probably have to give something away free
Jeanne Mills
2015-04-09 13:31:54 +0000 UTCThe podcast covers everything as well as it can - what the public needs is better simple graphic illustrations of the challenge. Those could be; (i) flow charts, (ii) descriptions of the entities and laws involved, (iii) a map that shows what geography a person is in and what the NSA could do to them, (iv) a timeline of privacy issues and the Snowden releases. Is this some thing that Len Peralta could illustrate?
Fred Lybrand
2015-04-08 18:48:20 +0000 UTCI use car metaphors all the time. I convinced my family of the evils of "metadata" by asking them to imagine the government knowing where your car went and how fast, where you stopped, how much you paid for gas, where you parked, who got in and who got out. Sure, they never looked *inside* the car ...
Rob O
2015-04-08 17:33:28 +0000 UTCI always find is more interesting when I interesting the implications on the way I live my life of the events happening in the news. I think the comedy method is ok but its very easy to over do it and lose the value of the story or its importance
Simon
2015-04-08 13:05:15 +0000 UTCThere's the people that make it happen, the people that watch it happen and there's the people that wonder what the heck happened. Most people are in the last category and nothing you can do will make it palatable, they just don't have the appetite. I see it at work, Tech works for them to the extent of their interest, which usually stops at FB posts. Snowden and the whole surveillance issue isn't on their radar.
Keith van Dijk
2015-04-07 22:44:25 +0000 UTCUnfortunately I don't think palatability is the problem. I believe the majority of the population not only doesn't know, they don't want to know about privacy/security issues. By remaining oblivious, the blame can always be placed elsewhere when things go bad. Until mass media latches on and makes it next to impossible to claim ignorance, a lot of people are perfectly happy with their collective head in the sand.
Tad Robbins
2015-04-07 21:12:16 +0000 UTCWhat Oliver does well (and employed in the Snowden interview) was making the tech issue relevant to the audience. "Collecting metadata" doesn't matter to the average person. "Can they see my dick pics" is incredibly relevant. Making the story personal is the way to make the average person understand it's relevant to them. If the average person can't relate it to their day-to-day life, it's not important to them. I do that cost-benefit analysis every day about a lot of things. I'm a news junkie who pays attention to a lot of things and a computer expert who understands what Snowden revealed and why it's a big deal, I also continue to use cell phones, surf the internet without a VPN and am firmly ensconced in the Google ecosystem. I do that knowingly understanding what I'm giving up and what I'm gaining. My relatives, even the smart ones, do it unknowingly because they do not know what the relevancy is to their day-to-day life.
Dylan Northrup
2015-04-07 20:15:45 +0000 UTCSnowden was covered heavily in the media, its more that people forget, especially people who don't understand how something works. I think John did a great job focusing on the one thing everyone will fear the most to grab their attention in a funny way. By using this specific topic it allowed Snowden to go into detail about these things work and educate them. Mainstream media was very quick (in my opinion) to push the non domestic communication line, but because they kept it focused Snowden could explain how even domestic communications can be caught up without the user knowing. The story really is, just because you don't understand, doesn't make it ok to forget about.
AcronTron
2015-04-07 20:11:45 +0000 UTCI tend to tune out if someone can't point to a concrete way to make my tech safer. "Don't give people access to your data," versus, "Put a post it note over your laptop's webcam." Until I have a task that I can do, it's all just hand wringing.
Mel Thorne
2015-04-07 19:27:37 +0000 UTCAs a former science educator, I liken this issue to that of Climate Change. There are always going to be different "camps" of people who respond to different approaches - some respond to the emotional or ethical aspects while others respond to fear of a theoretical / hypothetical thread and others still only respond to practical or economic aspects. I think all of these stories have to be told; however, the trick is to artfully weave these narratives together. You may emphasize and focus on one over the other depending on your audience, but it's important to not leave out other elements of the story. I think it's a disservice when that happens and can set you back... Case in point - Climate Change early on only appealed to the emotional and ethical arguments. Originally it was most commonly referred to as Global Warming. I think that telling just the emotional and ethical arguments really polarized the issue as proponents could demonize opponents and that's not a good way to get people on your side. Additionally, the descriptions of a drought ridden future were too sensational for some to conceive or imagine and instead opponents poked "holes" in the concept by claiming that they weren't noticing any temperature change personally. When people don't understand technical details they fall back on personal experience. That's why I think it's critical to bring in practical and economic implications early on while appealing to ethics and also explaining theoretical end games. Sorry if this is all over the place... quickly scribbled during a late lunch break.
josey4628
2015-04-07 19:09:49 +0000 UTC
![VAM_Erup[VR]](https://xaiju.com/istorage/28584.jpg)
