Lots of people saying they don’t like the idea of this here. How many people works at companies whose bottom line is driven by researching website visitors to make their ads unforgettable?
So this is basically a modern approach to Danny Meyer's (Union Square Hospitality Group [1]) "collecting the dots" he described in his book Setting the Table [2].
His suggestion was to have staff listen to conversations (and have conversations with guests) and then record any interesting "dots" like a child having a graduation coming up or an anniversary just around the corner. That way on their next visit the staff could be well-prepared.
Click-bait headline makes you think otherwise, but this is just standard hospitality stuff.
I don't know if the times have changed, but if the staff at the restaurant I've been twice knows something I did not tell them, I would not be particularly comfortable with that.
It's funny to read these comments, of course HN would react this way but since the vast majority of restaurant patrons are so-called normies, it doesn't make much sense to cater to HNers. In fact, most normal people actually prefer that restaurants know their interests and cater to them, it leads to their higher satisfaction and makes the restaurant experience (which includes more than just the taste of the food, for most people at least) more memorable overall.
Not sure I totally buy that. If anything, I’ve found laypeople to be _more_ creeped out by targeted advertising, in particular, than tech people (with the caveat that this is in Europe, and I do think there’s a cultural gap there; Europe’s stricter regulation on this sort of thing doesn’t arise in a vacuum).
Back in the 1980s both a small italian restaurant in Fremantle West Australia and a larger function restaurant (weddings, etc) further north did the same "social checking" via pre internet local newspapers and gossip circles.
Walking in, everyone was treated like family and the regulars treated as close family they actually liked (the next level up).
There's always been more to good restaurants than just the food.
Many people do hold that opinion of fine dining restaurants, yes, but normal people do go to them is only because there aren't enough snobs to sustain them.
I would prefer the restaurant to know that which is relevant, which is I would tell them anything which is relevant (for the specific order I am making at that time, which might or might not be the same next time), when I go to that restaurant. They do not necessarily need to know my name in order for this to work.
Sounds like the site thinks you're an AI bot, I tried on Firefox and Chrome with an ad blocker and it loads just fine for me. Are you running any VPNs etc?
Aside: I keep hearing of "AI bot" detection, but how does such a detector know that the script (if I may use this term instead of bot) uses ML (or some similar technique that falls under the AI umbrella) and why is that worse than (or noteworthy relative to) one that doesn't in the context of blocking?
I don't see what's so normal about any of this. In the past your friends would just mention a few hints while making the reservation... and people still do this now.
If they need to scan your social media, that speaks volumes about how you socialize and the quality of those interactions. Plenty of "normal" people don't want this either. The thoughts mean more coming from your friends than a creepy restaurant.
People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally.
If I was talking to a group of friends in real life, and I realized someone in the group was developing an obsession and closely keeping track of everything I said and subjecting it to endless scrutiny, I would be super creeped out. Even though they had every legal right to do that.
I understand that to some extent my friends build a profile of me in their heads and use it to anticipate like, if I want to go to an event with them. But that's not really a difference of degree, there's a phase change when it becomes an obsession and it becomes a difference of kind.
Similarly sometimes retail workers get to know my taste and will point out some item I would be interested in. Sometimes that makes me uncomfortable, but because I'm shy, not because they did anything wrong. If I learned they were reading my social media profile, it would start feeling uncomfortably close to the plot of The Menu.
> People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally.
That's honestly their problem, not the social media's, which clearly ask you whether you want certain content public or private and also remind you to update your privacy settings every few months. Your analogy is not correct, it's more akin to speaking in a public forum within earshot of others then getting weirded out that other people can hear you for some reason; go to a private place if you want a private conversation. It's not an actual moral issue, it's a misunderstanding of public vs private in the first place, which causes those in your example to think it's a moral issue.
It is considered rude to listen to other people's conversations in public. While it's wise not to say anything in public that shouldn't be overheard, that doesn't mean it isn't rude to eavesdrop.
It's not a moral issue but it is an ethical issue. I meant morally as in "in spirit" even if it's not illegal. Sorry if that was confusing wording.
(For what it's worth, this behavior of restaurants is not on my radar as a priority, and I'm making no calls to action. I was responding to GP's confusion and trying to provide an explanation. I wouldn't support legislation to make it illegal for restaurants to Google you or something.)
Okay, maybe I will frame it another way. Public social media is like shouting your content on a public square to anyone who wants to view it. Eavesdropping is the wrong analogy here, as it is more a publishing of your own personalized newspaper that anyone can read if they so chose. To then expect privacy from that is unreasonable, hence why I call it the user's problem, of false expectations despite repeatedly being told to the contrary by the social media service itself. There is nothing unethical about reading said newspaper if you are giving it out freely, that is indeed the expected response from an onlooker on the public square.
Let's say you get a notification from Facebook that an ex liked a post of yours from a year ago.
Were they authorized to do that? Sure. Is that creepy? Most people would find that creepy.
Everyone knows you could read every post that they ever put out there. There is an expectation that you know that's inappropriate.
I know that if I engage in discussion on the Internet, there's a good chance someone is going to get bent out of shape about something pretty innocuous I said. They have every right to do so. I still think they're a jerk every time. Is that a me problem? It's something I accept as a cost of doing business, but I think it's actually a them problem. (You've been perfectly civil, this isn't throwing shade, just an example I thought all of us could relate to.)
It is generally understood that we are able to do things that we probably shouldn't. Civil inattention makes the world go round.
No, if you don't want people to read every post put out there, do not make them public. There is no use in thinking someone is a jerk if you willingly allow them to do so, i.e., if they're an ex, why would or should they have access to your page in the first place? If you hadn't blocked them or removed them, then, again, it's your fault, as I stated initially.
Do not expect privacy in a public forum, it is simply not how the world works and thinking otherwise just sets you up for disappointment, or even worse, actual harm (say, a stalker seeing your complete address because you did not deign to make that information private). I really don't get why people argue about this concept, the solution is literally right there to fix but it seems that people perform mental gymnastics to not fix the root issue but instead call it a host of names like "creepy," an "expectation" of being "inappropriate," "being a jerk," a "moral issue," or "unethical." No, just fix the damn problem once and for all and be done with it.
That's good advice, which is irrelevant to the discussion of why people feel the way they do. I don't think we actually disagree on anything. I think you understand what I'm saying but would prefer to use my comments as a launchpad to express judgments about social media users than to discuss the why, and I just have no interest in that.
I took "confusion" in the original comment to mean "I'm curious why this is." You seem to be saying you "don't get it" to mean that they're stupid for making different decisions about the cost versus benefit of social media use, or for wanting to reduce that cost. Again, just not something I'm interested in discussing further.
If you talk to your friends in person in a public space, would you be comfortable with restauranteurs stealthily following you around and analyzing your conversations? Why is social media any different?
There are clearly different degrees to which information that is presented in a public space is expected to be disseminated to strangers. Simply being "made public" doesn't necessarily invite invasive spying on every detail of your public actions
> If you talk to your friends in person in a public space, would you be comfortable with restauranteurs stealthily following you around and analyzing your conversations? Why is social media any different?
Exactly, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, so your friends should go to a private place if they want a private conversation (and similarly not have public social media profiles), not talking within earshot of others and expecting privacy, that people would close their ears while one talks. Restaurants, stores, and other such areas are explicitly not private places, I can't tell you the number of times I can hear embarrassing stories with no extra effort in my part, simply because people talk loud enough to hear.
Sure, but my question isn't whether you can expect perfect privacy in a public place or not. Obviously you can not, but we live in a trust-based society. My question is whether you think it is socially acceptable to abuse that trust. If it isn't in public, then it shouldn't be on social media either.
The creepy part isn't what, but why. The article later mentions a place that is "old school" and actually talks to their patrons.
If the goal is to attract and keep patrons, especially at a high end restaurant where details matter, I think some formalities are still reasonably expected.
You're proving my point. Only do people on HN care, I've never heard of anyone "normal" expressing concern over this sort of restaurant policy, and doubly so if they made their entire account public in the first place. By all means, friends can mention a few hints, but that doesn't mean that restaurants won't do their own research.
> If they need to scan your social media, that speaks volumes about how you socialize and the quality of those interactions.
No, it doesn't, and I don't see how you came to the conclusion that if a restaurant had to scan my social media that it says anything about how I socialize. People don't just socialize only on social media, you know.
All I'm saying is if I'm important to the business they should take the time to know me in person, not try to leverage technology to make this more efficient. The customer is not cattle.
If my friends care, they will know what to surprise me with better than someone who glanced online as a rote part of their job.
The episode in question came out two years ago, and there’s nothing significantly spoilery in the article.
EDIT: Parent post was edited to say “S4”, but the episode described in the article was from Season 2. The only thing at all mentioned about Season 4 is that it was released on June 25.
The title seems ominous but the article itself is about how a fancy restaurant will go out of it's way to make you feel special. They're perusing your social media for clues.
In the past your spouse or kid would call and let the maitre'd know it was special; now I guess it's a job for someone on staff.
It’s really great that the most successful people in Silicon Valley disregard the social implications of their work. Arguably that’s what makes them so successful.
Customer profiling for restaurants is now available as a hosted service.[1] The industry term is "unified guest profile".
"Imagine this: A guest walks into your hotel. The front desk greets them by name, already knows they prefer a room away from the elevator, and offers a complimentary drink, the same cocktail they ordered at your rooftop bar during their last stay. At breakfast the waiter suggests asks if the guest wants the usual omelet or the menu to try something new, and at checkout, they’re offered a late checkout because their flight doesn’t leave until 8 p.m.
That’s not sci-fi. That’s what happens when your guest data systems actually talk to each other."[2]
If they're already vetting your social media, they can also start refusing service based upon religious or political leanings displayed in your posts. No slope (slippery or otherwise) is required.
Imagine making reservations for a family dinner but being turned away at the door because the restaurant found a post (in support/critical) of Trump or one of his policies. The restaurant would be completely within its rights to do so, even if it seems a stupid and pointless business decision to cut clientele in half.
Reminds me of The Bear which has scenes like this. It is quite common in higher end restaurant, like those at the Michelin level to customize the experience for each guest (at least to a small degree, not necessarily changing out the entire menu for them).
Reminding one of something seems like it would exclude directly surfacing or naming the thing, because reminding implies a network hop between the one doing the reminding and the thing one is being reminded of.
Literally a tiny island that people travel to and stay at the inn just to eat dinner. When you're there, it appears that the staff outnumber patrons about two to one.
My wife and I went there for an anniversary dinner (and breakfast the next morning). It was an incredible experience. Certainly the best meal of my life and one of the best evenings.
But I watched The Menu later and that movie hit a little too close to home.
That’s complete rubbish. What of the sushi chef who has no knowledge or experience with French cuisine or someone who has mastered how to make a great taco? Would you not consider them masters of their craft, because I sure would.
Good opportunity to learn about SingleThread, which is a 90s-style throwback to when it was impossible to learn anything about Japan so people just made things up. Like, they call their customers "chairman of the board" because they just heard a random word somewhere?
Japanese customer service ("omotenashi") is mostly about not listening to your customers. You get exactly what they want to give you and that's it. If you have a dietary restriction they may just kick you out because they won't/can't change the menu.
Japanese customer service (“omotenas”) emphasizes anticipating needs and delivering respectful, consistent service, not improvisation. It can feel rigid (no menu changes), but it’s not about ignoring or dominating it customers. If a place can accommodate a food sensitivity, they usually will. If they truly can’t, they’ll tell you clearly rather than risk doing it wrong. It’s a cultural focus on doing things properly and fairly, not a lack of care or some sort of holier-than-thou feeling.
Yes, the dietary restriction thing has become less of an issue, as there's more immigrants/tourists and more interest in vegan food recently.
But Japanese businesses can be very risk-avoidant, so they're relatively happy to not make a sale if it could possibly cause any trouble, compared to what Westerners might expect.
Privacy concerns aside, I would be mortified if a restaurant did something special for me. I don't want extra attention. I don't want to have to pretend to be excited about a beverage I don't really care for or a gift I will just throw away.
Now if you will excuse, I see some clouds at which I need to shake my cane.
Didn't worry, they'll find this comment and stick you at an okay booth, provide okay service, and pretend not to recognize you next time you come in. It'll be perfect.
Many moons ago I was celebrating an anniversary with my parents and sister at a smallish, but very good, restaurant downtown.
As we were chatting while waiting for the dessert, the whole restaurant started singing "Happy Birthday", as the waiter (and owner) came with the dessert, sparkler and all.
I sooo wanted to just disappear.
Turned out my mom had told the waiter/owner about the occasion, and he had unbeknownst to my mom gotten all the other guests in on it.
Do you also give a fake name to the barista at Starbucks so they don't track you? Other restaurants can't even be bothered to do that much personalization, and just give you a number (and treat you like one).
The title implies (well, I'd say explicitly states with the word "vetting") that restaurants are trying to filter guests, maybe to avoid troublesome ones with uncouth posts online or something. And many of the comments are replying to that interpretation, based on the unfairness suggested in the title. It's not only clickbait, it's outrage bait, designed to spark anger.
The article itself is about how restaurants have gone above and beyond for some guests where they've been able to tell from their social media that they're celebrating a special occasion or some other thing like that. To make the guests' experience better and memorable.
There's a privacy angle to this, should restaurants do that, slippery slope, etc etc... but many of the comments aren't talking about that. They're responding to the inflammatory title.
I don't think we often get such a clear picture into the why behind online outrage and how clearly manufactured it can often be. I think it's easy to believe people are angry for a good reason, to take the anger "on good faith" in some sense. In this case, with the title being so far from the article, it's clear to see what's going on. And makes one wonder about the rest of the outrage out there.
I couldn’t agree more. Half the reason I posted it was the aggressive title; I was curious to see what would happen, and it was precisely what I expected heh.
The other half of the reason was that I really did think it was an interesting article. But having to keep the title the same was a fascinating social experiment.
You know how you sometimes read a title or a topic and you can infer the kind of commentary a particular topic will have? Even going so far as to expect words like “enshittification” to be used for both stating a point as well as for in-group signaling? Sort of like how opinions are front-loaded even if the article was read? (And very often the opinions are things we’ve heard before from many other people, this is a given).
Well, we’ve entered a period in manufactured outrage on the internet where an audience is primed ahead of time with talking points and perspectives that are deemed allowed, and then these reflexes are triggered over and over by the same kind of articles. And it’s the frenzy that counts.
It used to be confined to FB and other places but the average commenter has changed and so the average commentary has changed.
Articles are increasingly becoming rage bait, moreso than clickbait. I do not know what the appeal is yet but I imagine it’s some mixture of impulsivity that online commenting has enabled, combined with commenters thinking their take is valid/important/whatever. Maybe narcissistic but I can’t say for sure. At any rate, it’s another good way to destroy a community - especially one with self reinforcing mechanism like voting that basically ensures you’re on rails (with apologies to dhh)
I gotta say, I don't have the right personality traits to enjoy this kind of personal attention a lot of the time.
I've had experiences where the counter staff at my daily breakfast place started to recognize me and know what "usual" my order was going to be without my having to say it... and it really weirded me out more than anything else.
Sometimes I just want to be a faceless nobody, forgotten day after day by the businesses I visit and the public spaces I navigate.
Yeah I get what you mean. I think I'd be a lot more weirded out than delighted if a restaurant I was going to stalked my social media (such as it exists at all), attempted to deduce things I would like from it, and presented me those things at a meal.
> I don't have the right personality traits to enjoy this kind of personal attention a lot of the time
Have friends who work at the Four Seasons. This—low service interaction—is a common type of personalised attention patrons want.
I don’t think there is a social media cue for it. But even as someone who’s fairly extroverted, I got a note indicating I should be left alone if dining alone and reading.
Yeah I’m heavily introverted and feel the same way. It establishes a kind of social pressure that if I fail to hold up my side of the relationship I just get anxious
It is expected that filtering based on digital content will become a thing for a while. It's one of those obvious, but misguided, uses of recent technologies.
I don't know about restaurants, but in regards to other kinds of silos, it is likely that those filters will go down once quality data availability becomes a problem.
In the restaurant analogy, you can say that if the salloon is empty, they'll let people in because they can't survive without them.
It must be emphasised that they're doing this with public information and presumably whatever else you've implicitly consented to giving them, so I don't see a problem with that. Nonetheless this isn't the experience I'd want from a restaurant, and fortunately there are plenty of others to choose from.
Honestly, this just seems like really creative and earnest hospitality. To summarize the somewhat fluffy piece -
> Kirk also has a gigantic database of each guest — about 115,000 people — and knows how many times they’ve dined at Lazy Bear since it first opened as a supper club in 2009. She then dives into social media and finds extra information that is publicly available to get a sense of who the guests are before they come in. Finally, she puts all the data she’s gathered into a color-coded Google document that every member of the team, front and back of house, studies.
“We get hundreds of emails a day, and the intimate details that some people are willing to share, sometimes we’re like ‘Holy crap. I can’t believe you told us that,’” Booth said. “But then there’s the fun, the literal joy, our team feels when they get to make these special touches with those details.”
--
That sounds great to me! I think some commenters are imagining a kind of Black Mirror meets Berghain meets social credit scenario, but it seems like really none of those things. Cynically, one could perhaps paint it as another clever way for Bay Area folks to convert capital into emotionally emulated human experiences, though even amongst that list I'd consider it one of the more wholesome.
Maybe I’ll start taking pictures of the owners kids playing in the yard so I can establish a better relationship with the business and get better service.
Seems like the potential start of a dystopian nightmare to me.
Wouldn't be better for all concerned if a 2 star restaurant worked at providing better food and service instead of privacy invasion and exploitation of the vain?
I think you totally could replicate these experiences without the restaurant involved. Fun surprises are nice, but the absurdity of having the restaurant provide these kinds of experiences seems tacky.
I don't think I'm alone in wanting the restaurant's personality to be just as much a part of the experience as my own personality. Otherwise, what makes this place more special than any other wanting to pull the same gimmicks?
Despite much hype, past a certain point even the highest end food really is... just food.
The service is what people really pay for, and there I agree that there should be much more interesting ideas to elevate the experience than bringing in a baby penguin. I don't see anything in the article as particularly creative.
Haha this is fantastic. I suppose we must have been uninteresting guests to these places because we didn't get this degree of personalization but the food was great. A lot of these 3 Mich experiences are experiences and not just a dining alone thing so I totally get it. Fun stuff!
That's ok, you'll get the same treatment everyone else got before they started this trend. "Normies" with their lives on the standard socials will get extra attention or special treatment at no detriment to you.
The example in the article is about getting to know your patrons so no social presence would be fine, but for what you're talking about with actual filtering no social presence would be an immediate rejection so I wouldn't be so
smug.
What does being rich have anything to do with this?
You seem to think SMB rejecting you is only a problem for them, have you considered that them rejecting you also means that you don't get service from them?
Like many here, before I read the article I assumed this was intended to be some sort of filtering mechanism... which is a bit dystopian, but IMO the truth is much MUCH more bizarre.
We're talking about a fancy restaurant that researches you and your social media to better cater to you and make you feel "special". I think I'd prefer that this just be an extension of the velvet rope, bouncers have been around for ages, but this feels genuinely creepy.
> “The information is used as a precursor to gain more of an understanding of who our guests are,” general manager Akeel Shah explained to SFGATE. “We may not even use the information, but it gives us a better way to tailor the experience and make it memorable.”
Eewwww, no. Just no. It really feels like someone watched 'The Menu', missed the entire point of the movie, and just thought "Hey wouldn't it be neat if WE knew everything about our customers before they arrived?"
I haven't seen The Menu, but try watching The Bear instead. They demonstrate this level-of-service & mentality and it's much more sincere than you think.
The Menu is... overly sincere, I won't spoil it, but it's the "Restaurant as cult environment" movie. In fact the question of lacking sincerity is framed as "the audience casually disregards the immense effort and dedication requires to achieve what you demand."
...Now that's probably using restaurants as a metaphor for the film industry, but either way the point holds. I'm not put off by insincerity, it's forced, false intimacy as a product or a service goal that bothers me. Good food, good (not fawning) service is more than enough for me, I don't need this kind of race-to-the-bottom Michelin stars seem to inspire.
There's a fundamental difference - restaurants checking if you like wine on Instagram to enhance service is optional and consequence-free, while China's system is mandatory with significant legal and financial penalties.
Until they start denying people service because they expressed support for the wrong political party or took the wrong side on a divisive social issue.
Their social credit system doesn't actually exist in the way most people think it does, it was a top down mandate that each province was expected to implement in their own way, often without coordination.
Lots of people saying they don’t like the idea of this here. How many people works at companies whose bottom line is driven by researching website visitors to make their ads unforgettable?
So this is basically a modern approach to Danny Meyer's (Union Square Hospitality Group [1]) "collecting the dots" he described in his book Setting the Table [2].
His suggestion was to have staff listen to conversations (and have conversations with guests) and then record any interesting "dots" like a child having a graduation coming up or an anniversary just around the corner. That way on their next visit the staff could be well-prepared.
Click-bait headline makes you think otherwise, but this is just standard hospitality stuff.
[1] https://www.ushg.com/
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Setting-Table-Transforming-Hospitalit...
If I caught the staff doing that at a hotel or restaurant, I’d black list them. Fuck that.
The eavesdropping part is creepy, otherwise this is more or less part of what makes a good and valued concierge.
I don't know if the times have changed, but if the staff at the restaurant I've been twice knows something I did not tell them, I would not be particularly comfortable with that.
It's funny to read these comments, of course HN would react this way but since the vast majority of restaurant patrons are so-called normies, it doesn't make much sense to cater to HNers. In fact, most normal people actually prefer that restaurants know their interests and cater to them, it leads to their higher satisfaction and makes the restaurant experience (which includes more than just the taste of the food, for most people at least) more memorable overall.
Not sure I totally buy that. If anything, I’ve found laypeople to be _more_ creeped out by targeted advertising, in particular, than tech people (with the caveat that this is in Europe, and I do think there’s a cultural gap there; Europe’s stricter regulation on this sort of thing doesn’t arise in a vacuum).
Yes, it's different in America. Yet even in Europe will Michelin star restaurants do things similar to the article.
Back in the 1980s both a small italian restaurant in Fremantle West Australia and a larger function restaurant (weddings, etc) further north did the same "social checking" via pre internet local newspapers and gossip circles.
Walking in, everyone was treated like family and the regulars treated as close family they actually liked (the next level up).
There's always been more to good restaurants than just the food.
Exactly. All these other comments are simply wild to me and it's something I'd only see on HN as well.
Maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy, but these places feel designed for snobs, not normies.
I am not sure snobs is the right word. It is just a different experience.
I like opera and I like metal but while both are music, it is a completely different live musical experience.
Many people do hold that opinion of fine dining restaurants, yes, but normal people do go to them is only because there aren't enough snobs to sustain them.
That's most of HN
I would prefer the restaurant to know that which is relevant, which is I would tell them anything which is relevant (for the specific order I am making at that time, which might or might not be the same next time), when I go to that restaurant. They do not necessarily need to know my name in order for this to work.
Read the article, it's a surprise for a reason.
I cannot read the article; it says I need a TollBit Token, which I don't have. If I try to figure out how to do that, then that doesn't work either.
Sounds like the site thinks you're an AI bot, I tried on Firefox and Chrome with an ad blocker and it loads just fine for me. Are you running any VPNs etc?
Aside: I keep hearing of "AI bot" detection, but how does such a detector know that the script (if I may use this term instead of bot) uses ML (or some similar technique that falls under the AI umbrella) and why is that worse than (or noteworthy relative to) one that doesn't in the context of blocking?
I don't see what's so normal about any of this. In the past your friends would just mention a few hints while making the reservation... and people still do this now.
If they need to scan your social media, that speaks volumes about how you socialize and the quality of those interactions. Plenty of "normal" people don't want this either. The thoughts mean more coming from your friends than a creepy restaurant.
I’m genuinely confused by people who find it creepy that their public social media be scanned and analysed. You made it public!
People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally.
If I was talking to a group of friends in real life, and I realized someone in the group was developing an obsession and closely keeping track of everything I said and subjecting it to endless scrutiny, I would be super creeped out. Even though they had every legal right to do that.
I understand that to some extent my friends build a profile of me in their heads and use it to anticipate like, if I want to go to an event with them. But that's not really a difference of degree, there's a phase change when it becomes an obsession and it becomes a difference of kind.
Similarly sometimes retail workers get to know my taste and will point out some item I would be interested in. Sometimes that makes me uncomfortable, but because I'm shy, not because they did anything wrong. If I learned they were reading my social media profile, it would start feeling uncomfortably close to the plot of The Menu.
> People want the benefits of interacting in public without the cost of being scrutinized and manipulated. When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Legally, it's sort of the case that they're granting people that permission. But not morally.
That's honestly their problem, not the social media's, which clearly ask you whether you want certain content public or private and also remind you to update your privacy settings every few months. Your analogy is not correct, it's more akin to speaking in a public forum within earshot of others then getting weirded out that other people can hear you for some reason; go to a private place if you want a private conversation. It's not an actual moral issue, it's a misunderstanding of public vs private in the first place, which causes those in your example to think it's a moral issue.
It is considered rude to listen to other people's conversations in public. While it's wise not to say anything in public that shouldn't be overheard, that doesn't mean it isn't rude to eavesdrop.
It's not a moral issue but it is an ethical issue. I meant morally as in "in spirit" even if it's not illegal. Sorry if that was confusing wording.
(For what it's worth, this behavior of restaurants is not on my radar as a priority, and I'm making no calls to action. I was responding to GP's confusion and trying to provide an explanation. I wouldn't support legislation to make it illegal for restaurants to Google you or something.)
Okay, maybe I will frame it another way. Public social media is like shouting your content on a public square to anyone who wants to view it. Eavesdropping is the wrong analogy here, as it is more a publishing of your own personalized newspaper that anyone can read if they so chose. To then expect privacy from that is unreasonable, hence why I call it the user's problem, of false expectations despite repeatedly being told to the contrary by the social media service itself. There is nothing unethical about reading said newspaper if you are giving it out freely, that is indeed the expected response from an onlooker on the public square.
Let's say you get a notification from Facebook that an ex liked a post of yours from a year ago.
Were they authorized to do that? Sure. Is that creepy? Most people would find that creepy.
Everyone knows you could read every post that they ever put out there. There is an expectation that you know that's inappropriate.
I know that if I engage in discussion on the Internet, there's a good chance someone is going to get bent out of shape about something pretty innocuous I said. They have every right to do so. I still think they're a jerk every time. Is that a me problem? It's something I accept as a cost of doing business, but I think it's actually a them problem. (You've been perfectly civil, this isn't throwing shade, just an example I thought all of us could relate to.)
It is generally understood that we are able to do things that we probably shouldn't. Civil inattention makes the world go round.
No, if you don't want people to read every post put out there, do not make them public. There is no use in thinking someone is a jerk if you willingly allow them to do so, i.e., if they're an ex, why would or should they have access to your page in the first place? If you hadn't blocked them or removed them, then, again, it's your fault, as I stated initially.
Do not expect privacy in a public forum, it is simply not how the world works and thinking otherwise just sets you up for disappointment, or even worse, actual harm (say, a stalker seeing your complete address because you did not deign to make that information private). I really don't get why people argue about this concept, the solution is literally right there to fix but it seems that people perform mental gymnastics to not fix the root issue but instead call it a host of names like "creepy," an "expectation" of being "inappropriate," "being a jerk," a "moral issue," or "unethical." No, just fix the damn problem once and for all and be done with it.
That's good advice, which is irrelevant to the discussion of why people feel the way they do. I don't think we actually disagree on anything. I think you understand what I'm saying but would prefer to use my comments as a launchpad to express judgments about social media users than to discuss the why, and I just have no interest in that.
I took "confusion" in the original comment to mean "I'm curious why this is." You seem to be saying you "don't get it" to mean that they're stupid for making different decisions about the cost versus benefit of social media use, or for wanting to reduce that cost. Again, just not something I'm interested in discussing further.
If you talk to your friends in person in a public space, would you be comfortable with restauranteurs stealthily following you around and analyzing your conversations? Why is social media any different?
There are clearly different degrees to which information that is presented in a public space is expected to be disseminated to strangers. Simply being "made public" doesn't necessarily invite invasive spying on every detail of your public actions
> If you talk to your friends in person in a public space, would you be comfortable with restauranteurs stealthily following you around and analyzing your conversations? Why is social media any different?
Exactly, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, so your friends should go to a private place if they want a private conversation (and similarly not have public social media profiles), not talking within earshot of others and expecting privacy, that people would close their ears while one talks. Restaurants, stores, and other such areas are explicitly not private places, I can't tell you the number of times I can hear embarrassing stories with no extra effort in my part, simply because people talk loud enough to hear.
Sure, but my question isn't whether you can expect perfect privacy in a public place or not. Obviously you can not, but we live in a trust-based society. My question is whether you think it is socially acceptable to abuse that trust. If it isn't in public, then it shouldn't be on social media either.
The creepy part isn't what, but why. The article later mentions a place that is "old school" and actually talks to their patrons.
If the goal is to attract and keep patrons, especially at a high end restaurant where details matter, I think some formalities are still reasonably expected.
I wonder if there’s ever been a case of mistaken identity. A bear lover instead of a penguin lover for example.
You're proving my point. Only do people on HN care, I've never heard of anyone "normal" expressing concern over this sort of restaurant policy, and doubly so if they made their entire account public in the first place. By all means, friends can mention a few hints, but that doesn't mean that restaurants won't do their own research.
> If they need to scan your social media, that speaks volumes about how you socialize and the quality of those interactions.
No, it doesn't, and I don't see how you came to the conclusion that if a restaurant had to scan my social media that it says anything about how I socialize. People don't just socialize only on social media, you know.
All I'm saying is if I'm important to the business they should take the time to know me in person, not try to leverage technology to make this more efficient. The customer is not cattle.
If my friends care, they will know what to surprise me with better than someone who glanced online as a rote part of their job.
What gave you the impression that they don't also talk to their customers as well?
The Bear S4 has not been out long enough for the author to be dropping massive spoilers in the article without warning… annoying.
Edit: apologies I clearly can’t read and the person below me is correct.
The episode in question came out two years ago, and there’s nothing significantly spoilery in the article.
EDIT: Parent post was edited to say “S4”, but the episode described in the article was from Season 2. The only thing at all mentioned about Season 4 is that it was released on June 25.
The title seems ominous but the article itself is about how a fancy restaurant will go out of it's way to make you feel special. They're perusing your social media for clues.
In the past your spouse or kid would call and let the maitre'd know it was special; now I guess it's a job for someone on staff.
Until some YC backed SaaS LLM AI automates the process and it becomes table stakes. Then they find other uses for it..
I'm waiting for fully automated writing style recognition that finds all your throwaway accounts and sends you a shakedown letter.
I'm waiting for an AI bot that follows everyone around and points out ideological inconsistencies.
"funny, you were all fine with this when X was doing it as evidenced in <cites specific comments>, care to explain why this is different?".
Reproducing Hacker News writing style fingerprinting, by antirez of Redis fame
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43705632
It’s really great that the most successful people in Silicon Valley disregard the social implications of their work. Arguably that’s what makes them so successful.
This was possible before, as the post shows with a previous HN post, nothing to do with Silicon Valley.
'Silicon Valley' here is just proxy for 'self-delusional tech glitterati with a cheap veneer of enlightenment'.
I suspect HN is already checking IP.
Are we really doing the slippery slope dangers of a high end restaurant going out of their way to delight?
Customer profiling for restaurants is now available as a hosted service.[1] The industry term is "unified guest profile".
"Imagine this: A guest walks into your hotel. The front desk greets them by name, already knows they prefer a room away from the elevator, and offers a complimentary drink, the same cocktail they ordered at your rooftop bar during their last stay. At breakfast the waiter suggests asks if the guest wants the usual omelet or the menu to try something new, and at checkout, they’re offered a late checkout because their flight doesn’t leave until 8 p.m.
That’s not sci-fi. That’s what happens when your guest data systems actually talk to each other."[2]
[1] https://www.hungerrush.com/restaurant-marketing-loyalty/the-...
[2] https://www.hospitalitynet.org/explainer/4127923.html
If they're already vetting your social media, they can also start refusing service based upon religious or political leanings displayed in your posts. No slope (slippery or otherwise) is required.
Imagine making reservations for a family dinner but being turned away at the door because the restaurant found a post (in support/critical) of Trump or one of his policies. The restaurant would be completely within its rights to do so, even if it seems a stupid and pointless business decision to cut clientele in half.
So, yes, is your answer to the preceding question.
> and it becomes table stakes.
I see what you did there.
Unlawful in the EU, thankfully. The US seriously needs to revaluate it's data protection laws.
I'm planning to move to Columbia.
I know that high-end restaurants there get extreme in service. That can make me uncomfortable in certain contexts.
Like Columbia, MD? Or the university?
Columbia, South America.
https://archive.ph/o/S25jP/https://cdn.digg.com/wp-content/u...
Colombia. You may need to spell it correctly before you move there. :)
that's a neat map, thanks for sharing
[dead]
Thanks! We've changed the title above to use a more representative phrase from the article.
Reminds me of The Menu.
Reminds me of The Bear which has scenes like this. It is quite common in higher end restaurant, like those at the Michelin level to customize the experience for each guest (at least to a small degree, not necessarily changing out the entire menu for them).
Which itself draws from the book ‘Unreasonable Hospitality’ and iirc the Chicago restaurant ‘Ever’ featured in the show applies this approach.
And the Four Seasons has been recognized for this for many years; it was a case study in business school for me.
(The "Ever" in "The Bear" is a composite of many restaurants).
Good point :) the show’s Ever definitely utilizes it but my understanding is the real one does too.
The Bear is literally the lead-in paragraph for the article
Yes, that is why I mentioned it.
Reminding one of something seems like it would exclude directly surfacing or naming the thing, because reminding implies a network hop between the one doing the reminding and the thing one is being reminded of.
Going to The French Laundry has many similar to The Menu and felt like it was what the movie was satirizing
The Willows Inn is an even stronger parallel.
Literally a tiny island that people travel to and stay at the inn just to eat dinner. When you're there, it appears that the staff outnumber patrons about two to one.
My wife and I went there for an anniversary dinner (and breakfast the next morning). It was an incredible experience. Certainly the best meal of my life and one of the best evenings.
But I watched The Menu later and that movie hit a little too close to home.
The Menu is specifically satirizing the show Chef's Table [0]. Notice the same sort of music and compositon of the plates as well as the font.
[0] https://youtu.be/BkN9dDGTgtw
Thanks, I was curious
Still creepy.
author doesn't understand the definition of "vetting"
which is par for the course for sfgate/chronicle
Restaurants concentrate too hard on the things that are not food.
If a restaurateur and/or the head chef has any pretensions of greatness, then they must master two French dishes, Coq au Vin, and Boeuf Bourguignon.
Before investing in anything else, these are tollgates.
That’s complete rubbish. What of the sushi chef who has no knowledge or experience with French cuisine or someone who has mastered how to make a great taco? Would you not consider them masters of their craft, because I sure would.
I respect that you at least literally admit that you are gatekeeping.
It is a certain gatekeeping that demands some quantity of flexibility in culinary arts.
To me flexibility in culinary arts would mean that you know dishes from multiple cuisines, not just two dishes from French cuisine.
Sounds like someone has never had Massaman curry
Good opportunity to learn about SingleThread, which is a 90s-style throwback to when it was impossible to learn anything about Japan so people just made things up. Like, they call their customers "chairman of the board" because they just heard a random word somewhere?
Japanese customer service ("omotenashi") is mostly about not listening to your customers. You get exactly what they want to give you and that's it. If you have a dietary restriction they may just kick you out because they won't/can't change the menu.
Japanese customer service (“omotenas”) emphasizes anticipating needs and delivering respectful, consistent service, not improvisation. It can feel rigid (no menu changes), but it’s not about ignoring or dominating it customers. If a place can accommodate a food sensitivity, they usually will. If they truly can’t, they’ll tell you clearly rather than risk doing it wrong. It’s a cultural focus on doing things properly and fairly, not a lack of care or some sort of holier-than-thou feeling.
Yes, the dietary restriction thing has become less of an issue, as there's more immigrants/tourists and more interest in vegan food recently.
But Japanese businesses can be very risk-avoidant, so they're relatively happy to not make a sale if it could possibly cause any trouble, compared to what Westerners might expect.
The movie "LA Story" predicted this in the L'Idiot scene.
https://youtu.be/k3FvhR0n8x8?si=YjNzYF60aCeRvZE3&t=68
Terrible. I go to fine dining in order to partake in the chef’s vision.
Privacy concerns aside, I would be mortified if a restaurant did something special for me. I don't want extra attention. I don't want to have to pretend to be excited about a beverage I don't really care for or a gift I will just throw away.
Now if you will excuse, I see some clouds at which I need to shake my cane.
Didn't worry, they'll find this comment and stick you at an okay booth, provide okay service, and pretend not to recognize you next time you come in. It'll be perfect.
What if their special thing for you was to treat you like a truly genetic customer?
I.e., like what Leslie Knope did for Run Swanson on his birthday.
Many moons ago I was celebrating an anniversary with my parents and sister at a smallish, but very good, restaurant downtown.
As we were chatting while waiting for the dessert, the whole restaurant started singing "Happy Birthday", as the waiter (and owner) came with the dessert, sparkler and all.
I sooo wanted to just disappear.
Turned out my mom had told the waiter/owner about the occasion, and he had unbeknownst to my mom gotten all the other guests in on it.
Nice thought, just totally not my thing.
Do you also give a fake name to the barista at Starbucks so they don't track you? Other restaurants can't even be bothered to do that much personalization, and just give you a number (and treat you like one).
These comments are such a great pointer to the way outrage is engineered.
Can you elaborate?
The title implies (well, I'd say explicitly states with the word "vetting") that restaurants are trying to filter guests, maybe to avoid troublesome ones with uncouth posts online or something. And many of the comments are replying to that interpretation, based on the unfairness suggested in the title. It's not only clickbait, it's outrage bait, designed to spark anger.
The article itself is about how restaurants have gone above and beyond for some guests where they've been able to tell from their social media that they're celebrating a special occasion or some other thing like that. To make the guests' experience better and memorable.
There's a privacy angle to this, should restaurants do that, slippery slope, etc etc... but many of the comments aren't talking about that. They're responding to the inflammatory title.
I don't think we often get such a clear picture into the why behind online outrage and how clearly manufactured it can often be. I think it's easy to believe people are angry for a good reason, to take the anger "on good faith" in some sense. In this case, with the title being so far from the article, it's clear to see what's going on. And makes one wonder about the rest of the outrage out there.
I couldn’t agree more. Half the reason I posted it was the aggressive title; I was curious to see what would happen, and it was precisely what I expected heh.
The other half of the reason was that I really did think it was an interesting article. But having to keep the title the same was a fascinating social experiment.
Thanks for running the experiment :)
You know how you sometimes read a title or a topic and you can infer the kind of commentary a particular topic will have? Even going so far as to expect words like “enshittification” to be used for both stating a point as well as for in-group signaling? Sort of like how opinions are front-loaded even if the article was read? (And very often the opinions are things we’ve heard before from many other people, this is a given).
Well, we’ve entered a period in manufactured outrage on the internet where an audience is primed ahead of time with talking points and perspectives that are deemed allowed, and then these reflexes are triggered over and over by the same kind of articles. And it’s the frenzy that counts.
It used to be confined to FB and other places but the average commenter has changed and so the average commentary has changed.
Articles are increasingly becoming rage bait, moreso than clickbait. I do not know what the appeal is yet but I imagine it’s some mixture of impulsivity that online commenting has enabled, combined with commenters thinking their take is valid/important/whatever. Maybe narcissistic but I can’t say for sure. At any rate, it’s another good way to destroy a community - especially one with self reinforcing mechanism like voting that basically ensures you’re on rails (with apologies to dhh)
I gotta say, I don't have the right personality traits to enjoy this kind of personal attention a lot of the time.
I've had experiences where the counter staff at my daily breakfast place started to recognize me and know what "usual" my order was going to be without my having to say it... and it really weirded me out more than anything else.
Sometimes I just want to be a faceless nobody, forgotten day after day by the businesses I visit and the public spaces I navigate.
Yeah I get what you mean. I think I'd be a lot more weirded out than delighted if a restaurant I was going to stalked my social media (such as it exists at all), attempted to deduce things I would like from it, and presented me those things at a meal.
> I don't have the right personality traits to enjoy this kind of personal attention a lot of the time
Have friends who work at the Four Seasons. This—low service interaction—is a common type of personalised attention patrons want.
I don’t think there is a social media cue for it. But even as someone who’s fairly extroverted, I got a note indicating I should be left alone if dining alone and reading.
Yeah I’m heavily introverted and feel the same way. It establishes a kind of social pressure that if I fail to hold up my side of the relationship I just get anxious
If you go so often that people remember you, I mean, what do you expect, that they somehow block the memory of you from their mind?
It is expected that filtering based on digital content will become a thing for a while. It's one of those obvious, but misguided, uses of recent technologies.
I don't know about restaurants, but in regards to other kinds of silos, it is likely that those filters will go down once quality data availability becomes a problem.
In the restaurant analogy, you can say that if the salloon is empty, they'll let people in because they can't survive without them.
It must be emphasised that they're doing this with public information and presumably whatever else you've implicitly consented to giving them, so I don't see a problem with that. Nonetheless this isn't the experience I'd want from a restaurant, and fortunately there are plenty of others to choose from.
This is disconcerting, and I don’t like it, though I suppose I’m not really the target audience.
They been doing that for decades
Honestly, this just seems like really creative and earnest hospitality. To summarize the somewhat fluffy piece -
> Kirk also has a gigantic database of each guest — about 115,000 people — and knows how many times they’ve dined at Lazy Bear since it first opened as a supper club in 2009. She then dives into social media and finds extra information that is publicly available to get a sense of who the guests are before they come in. Finally, she puts all the data she’s gathered into a color-coded Google document that every member of the team, front and back of house, studies.
“We get hundreds of emails a day, and the intimate details that some people are willing to share, sometimes we’re like ‘Holy crap. I can’t believe you told us that,’” Booth said. “But then there’s the fun, the literal joy, our team feels when they get to make these special touches with those details.”
--
That sounds great to me! I think some commenters are imagining a kind of Black Mirror meets Berghain meets social credit scenario, but it seems like really none of those things. Cynically, one could perhaps paint it as another clever way for Bay Area folks to convert capital into emotionally emulated human experiences, though even amongst that list I'd consider it one of the more wholesome.
I completely agree with you.
Social Credit Score, but privatized
Of which, the name comes from the US concept of “credit score” which was always privatized.
Americans only care that the organization that can kill and arrest isn’t controlling all facets of life
But are tolerant that corporations do the exact same things in their society
Maybe I’ll start taking pictures of the owners kids playing in the yard so I can establish a better relationship with the business and get better service.
Replacing real intimacy to a paid service, neat.
(imagine I’m the dog sitting in the burning house saying this, it’s sarcasm)
Seems like the potential start of a dystopian nightmare to me.
Wouldn't be better for all concerned if a 2 star restaurant worked at providing better food and service instead of privacy invasion and exploitation of the vain?
For people who go to these restaurants, this is better service. You wouldn't find this happening at Red Robin. This is what they are paying for.
If it's not for you, that's fine.
I think you totally could replicate these experiences without the restaurant involved. Fun surprises are nice, but the absurdity of having the restaurant provide these kinds of experiences seems tacky.
I don't think I'm alone in wanting the restaurant's personality to be just as much a part of the experience as my own personality. Otherwise, what makes this place more special than any other wanting to pull the same gimmicks?
> I think you totally could replicate these experiences without the restaurant involved
How? Like another sort of establishment that's not a restaurant?
There are exactly 2 restaurants I recommend to people, and invite family/friends to when they’re visiting.
Absolutely none of these restaurants know who I am, do anything special for me, or even know my favorite dishes.
The only thing they have in common is they consistently make delicious tasting food. And they probably focus a lot on doing that. Its that simple.
I assume you're referring to Jacques Imo's in New Orleans, then :)
Despite much hype, past a certain point even the highest end food really is... just food.
The service is what people really pay for, and there I agree that there should be much more interesting ideas to elevate the experience than bringing in a baby penguin. I don't see anything in the article as particularly creative.
> past a certain point even the highest end food really is... just food
That point is still well up there. The difference between hours-picked tomatoes and Aramark sludge is worth paying for.
Haha this is fantastic. I suppose we must have been uninteresting guests to these places because we didn't get this degree of personalization but the food was great. A lot of these 3 Mich experiences are experiences and not just a dining alone thing so I totally get it. Fun stuff!
I would never eat at a restaurant that would let people like me in.
(Thanks, Groucho)
Good luck with that.
Pretty much the only social media I participate in, is ... here. I guess the Bay Area might take HN seriously, but I live in NY.
That's ok, you'll get the same treatment everyone else got before they started this trend. "Normies" with their lives on the standard socials will get extra attention or special treatment at no detriment to you.
The example in the article is about getting to know your patrons so no social presence would be fine, but for what you're talking about with actual filtering no social presence would be an immediate rejection so I wouldn't be so smug.
Not smug. I just don’t do social media. I know many folks, with lots of money, that are similar to me.
If SMBs want to reject us, because we aren’t posting every meal on TikTok, then they only have themselves to blame.
What does being rich have anything to do with this?
You seem to think SMB rejecting you is only a problem for them, have you considered that them rejecting you also means that you don't get service from them?
Hey listen.
Sorry if what I wrote, offended. Didn’t mean to.
So we’re done.
Like many here, before I read the article I assumed this was intended to be some sort of filtering mechanism... which is a bit dystopian, but IMO the truth is much MUCH more bizarre.
We're talking about a fancy restaurant that researches you and your social media to better cater to you and make you feel "special". I think I'd prefer that this just be an extension of the velvet rope, bouncers have been around for ages, but this feels genuinely creepy.
> “The information is used as a precursor to gain more of an understanding of who our guests are,” general manager Akeel Shah explained to SFGATE. “We may not even use the information, but it gives us a better way to tailor the experience and make it memorable.”
Eewwww, no. Just no. It really feels like someone watched 'The Menu', missed the entire point of the movie, and just thought "Hey wouldn't it be neat if WE knew everything about our customers before they arrived?"
I haven't seen The Menu, but try watching The Bear instead. They demonstrate this level-of-service & mentality and it's much more sincere than you think.
Specifically, the episode "Forks," in season 2. IMO, this episode can be enjoyed by someone otherwise unfamiliar with the show.
The Menu is... overly sincere, I won't spoil it, but it's the "Restaurant as cult environment" movie. In fact the question of lacking sincerity is framed as "the audience casually disregards the immense effort and dedication requires to achieve what you demand."
...Now that's probably using restaurants as a metaphor for the film industry, but either way the point holds. I'm not put off by insincerity, it's forced, false intimacy as a product or a service goal that bothers me. Good food, good (not fawning) service is more than enough for me, I don't need this kind of race-to-the-bottom Michelin stars seem to inspire.
Just like China's social credit system.
There's a fundamental difference - restaurants checking if you like wine on Instagram to enhance service is optional and consequence-free, while China's system is mandatory with significant legal and financial penalties.
Until they start denying people service because they expressed support for the wrong political party or took the wrong side on a divisive social issue.
[dead]
Surely once this becomes the norm and more business do it, it will only ever be used for good.. right.. ?
Except nothing like it? This article isn’t about filtering guests out, but about creating additional tailored experiences to those who do attend.
Their social credit system doesn't actually exist in the way most people think it does, it was a top down mandate that each province was expected to implement in their own way, often without coordination.
https://youtu.be/Kqov6F00KMc
Well sure, but for private enterprise.