Maybe start by not calling them “normies” .-.
If you want to get the attention of a group of people and expose your ideas to them, it’s generally not great to address them as some funny nickname lol.
Anyways, regarding the question itself, I try to probe whoever I want to expose the pro-privacy ideals before actually approaching them, in case we don’t know each other already. Just try to see what they value a lot (their country, their money, their time, etc) and present cases that, in a way, “exploit” those aspects. The word is strong and it kinda sounds bad, but it’s crucial to filter out information when first introducing someone to something new; you can’t just dump a whole wagon of facts and pros/cons into someone, as they will most likely just be bored and leave. Probe and play your cards accordingly.
Another thing is to make comparisons between digital and physical scenarios, where the latter would be unacceptable by today’s standards, while the former happens all the time. Stuff like “Would you be comfortable with having a government official and a Google/Apple employee sit right next to you every time you meet with friends and have a chat? Would you be comfortable with them taking note of every single thing, even the most deep, personal or controversial topics? Would you be comfortable with them then using those notes to shamelessly exploit you financially, and by other means?”, and so on.
You should also argument that the ruthless algorithms that drive the major social platforms nowadays are, without a shadow of a doubt, extremely effective at their purpose: keep you tethered to the service. The amount of time we, in general, spend (or waste; depends on the case and point of view) mindlessly scrolling on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, and the likes, is stupidly large. Ask them if they have a hobby they’d like to have more time to do, or a new skill they’d like to learn, etc, then ask how much time they spend on social media, and if it is quality time. Try make them realize that the platform is way too good at spoonfeeding them low-quality, filler content, and that that is ultimately bad for their health and habits.
Another side effect of the effectiveness of these algorithms is that anything ideological becomes extremely polarized, like politics. Our natural bias allied with the deep knowledge of our interests possessed by the complex digital brain that drives big social media platforms is a rather destructive combo. People tend to like things that go with what they already believe, and these platforms feed us with stuff we like and follow. It’s a vicious cycle. This is, as we know, a major problem in the USA, where, on top of having just two parties (representing completely opposing sides of the political spectrum), you have the “invisible” forces of social media polarizing the scenery even further.
Additionally, you can explore the idea that governments are not always the same, and history has proven that oppressive regimes can occur and that they make heavy use of information. Every detail counts when a group of people with power want to marginalize smaller communities (be it races, religions, genders, ideologies, etc). Lending all our information all our lives (some people don’t even know another reality) to governments is, essentially, dangerously playing with fire. One can talk of governments as one can talk of big corporations, driven by interests other than their customers’ well being and rights.
This also ties into the problem of centralization of power and how that is, in some ways, very much against the concept of democracy, a right fought time and time again throughout history. Explain to them that these platforms can change their policies and modus operandi (and some are living examples of it), and either start doing the oppression themselves, or leak information to institutions that will (again, remember dictatorships and the like).
And it doesn’t just have to be oppression of minorities, it can very well also be exploitation of their users’ content for their own benefit. Take YouTube as an example; it sometimes has rather shady reasons to demonetise content creators, but no one can really do anything about it, since Google’s platform is by far the biggest stage for video creators to share their works. Sure you can try using Vimeo, or any of these newer and more open platforms such as PeerTube, LBRY and removedute, but will you ever be as successful, with the same content, as you’d be on YouTube? Of course not, and this is a huge problem.
The Internet and World Wide Web were conceived as an open and decentralized network of services, yet what we have today is essentially a handful of websites, controlled by a bunch of USA corporations. Search? Google. Videos? Google. Social media? Facebook and Twitter. Music? Spotify and Apple. News? Google and Reddit. Movies and series? Netflix (and some other newer ones). Maps? Google. Chat? Facebook and Discord. Shopping? Amazon. Hosting? Amazon, Google, Microsoft. Operating system? Microsoft, Apple and Google. Even email, an amazing technology, living proof that decentralized systems are pretty cool, can be summed up into Google and Microsoft.
This is not alright.
As a last resort, you could also make the argument that all this shady data gathering makes programs heavier (both in storage and computing power), thus making your devices overall slower. However, this is, in most cases, a feeble argument.
I hope this helps you in any way, shape or form, and if anyone disagrees, please comment, as I’m glad to discuss the matter.
I may add more stuff if I remember, I’m sure I’m forgetting basic things :P
Edit: some language corrections. also, I had a brainfart and left a paragraph half written o_O
Maybe start by not calling them “normies” .-.
If you want to get the attention of a group of people and expose your ideas to them, it’s generally not great to address them as some funny nickname lol.
Anyways, regarding the question itself, I try to probe whoever I want to expose the pro-privacy ideals before actually approaching them, in case we don’t know each other already. Just try to see what they value a lot (their country, their money, their time, etc) and present cases that, in a way, “exploit” those aspects. The word is strong and it kinda sounds bad, but it’s crucial to filter out information when first introducing someone to something new; you can’t just dump a whole wagon of facts and pros/cons into someone, as they will most likely just be bored and leave. Probe and play your cards accordingly.
Another thing is to make comparisons between digital and physical scenarios, where the latter would be unacceptable by today’s standards, while the former happens all the time. Stuff like “Would you be comfortable with having a government official and a Google/Apple employee sit right next to you every time you meet with friends and have a chat? Would you be comfortable with them taking note of every single thing, even the most deep, personal or controversial topics? Would you be comfortable with them then using those notes to shamelessly exploit you financially, and by other means?”, and so on.
You should also argument that the ruthless algorithms that drive the major social platforms nowadays are, without a shadow of a doubt, extremely effective at their purpose: keep you tethered to the service. The amount of time we, in general, spend (or waste; depends on the case and point of view) mindlessly scrolling on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, and the likes, is stupidly large. Ask them if they have a hobby they’d like to have more time to do, or a new skill they’d like to learn, etc, then ask how much time they spend on social media, and if it is quality time. Try make them realize that the platform is way too good at spoonfeeding them low-quality, filler content, and that that is ultimately bad for their health and habits.
Another side effect of the effectiveness of these algorithms is that anything ideological becomes extremely polarized, like politics. Our natural bias allied with the deep knowledge of our interests possessed by the complex digital brain that drives big social media platforms is a rather destructive combo. People tend to like things that go with what they already believe, and these platforms feed us with stuff we like and follow. It’s a vicious cycle. This is, as we know, a major problem in the USA, where, on top of having just two parties (representing completely opposing sides of the political spectrum), you have the “invisible” forces of social media polarizing the scenery even further.
Additionally, you can explore the idea that governments are not always the same, and history has proven that oppressive regimes can occur and that they make heavy use of information. Every detail counts when a group of people with power want to marginalize smaller communities (be it races, religions, genders, ideologies, etc). Lending all our information all our lives (some people don’t even know another reality) to governments is, essentially, dangerously playing with fire. One can talk of governments as one can talk of big corporations, driven by interests other than their customers’ well being and rights.
This also ties into the problem of centralization of power and how that is, in some ways, very much against the concept of democracy, a right fought time and time again throughout history. Explain to them that these platforms can change their policies and modus operandi (and some are living examples of it), and either start doing the oppression themselves, or leak information to institutions that will (again, remember dictatorships and the like).
And it doesn’t just have to be oppression of minorities, it can very well also be exploitation of their users’ content for their own benefit. Take YouTube as an example; it sometimes has rather shady reasons to demonetise content creators, but no one can really do anything about it, since Google’s platform is by far the biggest stage for video creators to share their works. Sure you can try using Vimeo, or any of these newer and more open platforms such as PeerTube, LBRY and removedute, but will you ever be as successful, with the same content, as you’d be on YouTube? Of course not, and this is a huge problem.
The Internet and World Wide Web were conceived as an open and decentralized network of services, yet what we have today is essentially a handful of websites, controlled by a bunch of USA corporations. Search? Google. Videos? Google. Social media? Facebook and Twitter. Music? Spotify and Apple. News? Google and Reddit. Movies and series? Netflix (and some other newer ones). Maps? Google. Chat? Facebook and Discord. Shopping? Amazon. Hosting? Amazon, Google, Microsoft. Operating system? Microsoft, Apple and Google. Even email, an amazing technology, living proof that decentralized systems are pretty cool, can be summed up into Google and Microsoft. This is not alright.
As a last resort, you could also make the argument that all this shady data gathering makes programs heavier (both in storage and computing power), thus making your devices overall slower. However, this is, in most cases, a feeble argument.
I hope this helps you in any way, shape or form, and if anyone disagrees, please comment, as I’m glad to discuss the matter.
I may add more stuff if I remember, I’m sure I’m forgetting basic things :P
Edit: some language corrections. also, I had a brainfart and left a paragraph half written o_O