3 ms·
It makes sense. Poor people can't pay for privacy, now that it became a feature instead of a right.
by bighi 10y ago
It makes sense. Poor people can't pay for privacy, now that it became a feature instead of a right.
- eveningcoffee 10y agoFirst there is strong bias here, so we actually do not know really if it is true. Second, lets imagine that poor people would prefer whipping instead of imprisonment (they can return to work sooner) or fine. Should we follow the same logic here then and accept it?
- mfringel 10y agoIn your example, "whipping", "imprisonment", and "[or] fine" are all examples of punishments for a crime. Being poor is not a crime.
- marcosdumay 10y agoI think that's the point.
- eveningcoffee 10y agoOf course being poor is not a crime. But we all may make mistakes. For example exceed the speed limit. Say, instead of fine 50, I may agree to accept 5 whips with a wooden stick on my back. Because I need these 50. So should we accept whipping the poor if they demand it?
- cmdrfred 10y agoI don't see how physical violence is on the level of some company paying to know you visited a porn site.
- eveningcoffee 10y agoBoth are violating ones decency. On different levels of course. In both examples decency is traded for money. I would argue that violation of the online privacy is worse than whipping. No, the problem is not that somebody knows what specific content you are watching. The problem is that they find out you are poor. Youtube once considered that I could be a stereotypic poor person living in the US. The result was ugly.