3 ms·
Horrible argument. Because others so something shameful does not mean you have to support someone who does the same thing. I would love to see Googles, M$, Appl
by red023 9y ago
Horrible argument. Because others so something shameful does not mean you have to support someone who does the same thing. I would love to see Googles, M$, Apple, ... Reputation "assassinated" as well. And a lot of stuff is legal that is horrible and a hell of a lot of stuff is illegal that is totally fine. Like smoking a joint. So using legal/illegal as a argument is really bad.
If course laws that make this illegal would be great, still "uncalled for" is your opinion. I in fact call to public-ally shame every company who sells user data for profit. I am disgusted by "free" stuff. I would rather pay for something then to get something "for free". That why I have a payed protonmail instead of letting google read my mails to name one example.
- smallgovt 9y agoThis comes down to a value judgement. To some people (like you), online privacy is of immense value -- seemingly almost an inalienable right alongside, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. To others, online privacy has little to no value. I'm somewhere in the middle. Don't you think services like this should be freely available for people who don't value online privacy like you do? It doesn't seem right to project your value system onto others when both can peacefully co-exist... A logical solution that would protect both parties would regulate the transparency by which businesses must communicate these data sharing practices. I just don't see the logic around why any company who shares user data is automatically evil and worthy of assassination.