5 ms·

It's going to sound like I'm telling you how to live your life and how to feel and I really don't mean it that way but I don't know any other way to express my

It's going to sound like I'm telling you how to live your life and how to feel and I really don't mean it that way but I don't know any other way to express my viewpoint so I'll just power through it: The idea that someone, somewhere is making a profit on something you provided should make you happy, not sad. To make a profit, they had to be paid, and to be paid they normally have to have provided something that someone wanted enough to part with cash. That cash changed hands is not the main point of the transaction (it's a net zero for society, someone gained cash and someone lost it), the main point is rather that something of value was created. You threw out the example of pay journals like Elsevier. It is true that for cases like that, there may be a market inefficiency that means not much value is created. But I think those are edge cases and relatively rare. Even if our worst fears about Elsevier and other rent seeking journals are true, it would still be the case that you're helping rather than hurting by providing anonymized personal data.

kuschku 10y ago
It’s more like "you sold something under price". You might have sold your own data for a higher price if you had known.
AlexandrB 10y ago
> The idea that someone, somewhere is making a profit on something you provided [for free] should make you happy, not sad. This seems like a double standard. Why should I be happy when corporations will regularly go to court to make sure that nothing they create returns to the public domain within my lifetime? The norm seems to be capturing this kind value wherever (and for a long as) possible, not distributing it freely for the good of mankind. I'm not making a normative argument that this is a healthy way to live or for society to operate. In a functional community resources, ideas, and capabilities may be shared freely for the benefit of all, but it can't always go one way. That's exploitation, not community.
- Bluestrike2 10y ago
  Ok, so what? Even if a company fights to maintain control over their product, there's still a societal benefit even if that benefit has been artificially limited due to price. And while they can delay things to an extent, eventually, they'll lose control over their product as IP protections run out. There are still games that can be played at that point when everything is lined up just right, but those are games that can be addressed through legislation and the courts. I'd rather hideously expensive treatments exist, even if I can't afford them, than live in a world where they're never even an option. Price can and does change over time, and those treatments become more accessible to more people. But if the treatments are never developed in the first place, then that's an even greater tragedy because then there's literally nothing that can be done to make them accessible.
fucking_tragedy 10y ago
Value to a private entity != value to me, society or entities that matter to either. Especially when that private entity gains more power through my data and tries everything from questionable business practices to lobbying to make sure they, and only they, reap the benefits. People value chemical weapons and forced labor as well. They're willing to pay a lot for them, too.

kuschku 10y ago

It’s more like "you sold something under price". You might have sold your own data for a higher price if you had known.

AlexandrB 10y ago

> The idea that someone, somewhere is making a profit on something you provided [for free] should make you happy, not sad. This seems like a double standard. Why should I be happy when corporations will regularly go to court to make sure that nothing they create returns to the public domain within my lifetime? The norm seems to be capturing this kind value wherever (and for a long as) possible, not distributing it freely for the good of mankind. I'm not making a normative argument that this is a healthy way to live or for society to operate. In a functional community resources, ideas, and capabilities may be shared freely for the benefit of all, but it can't always go one way. That's exploitation, not community.

Bluestrike2 10y ago
Ok, so what? Even if a company fights to maintain control over their product, there's still a societal benefit even if that benefit has been artificially limited due to price. And while they can delay things to an extent, eventually, they'll lose control over their product as IP protections run out. There are still games that can be played at that point when everything is lined up just right, but those are games that can be addressed through legislation and the courts. I'd rather hideously expensive treatments exist, even if I can't afford them, than live in a world where they're never even an option. Price can and does change over time, and those treatments become more accessible to more people. But if the treatments are never developed in the first place, then that's an even greater tragedy because then there's literally nothing that can be done to make them accessible.

fucking_tragedy 10y ago

Value to a private entity != value to me, society or entities that matter to either. Especially when that private entity gains more power through my data and tries everything from questionable business practices to lobbying to make sure they, and only they, reap the benefits. People value chemical weapons and forced labor as well. They're willing to pay a lot for them, too.