5 ms·

Payment is not sufficient, but necessary. Without payment, they either make loss or have ads, so of course your are the product. With payment, they can afford

by vog 9y ago

Payment is not sufficient, but necessary. Without payment, they either make loss or have ads, so of course your are the product. With payment, they can afford to have strong privacy rules and have others check their system integrity. But they'll only do so if there's demand for sanity. So, pay for it and demand sanity. Oh, and payment doesn't necessarily mean a "pay per use" that makes user surveillance necessary. For some services and media, donations and/or flat rates work quite well.

KirinDave 9y ago
> With payment, they can afford to have strong privacy rules and have others check their system integrity. But they'll only do so if there's demand for sanity. I confess it's frustrating to me that I just defined 2 alternative models that involve customer paying, break customer faith, and do not involve ads. A post ignoring the examples I gave immediately appears. There is no set of behavior YOU can engage in to encourage a company to do the right thing. You may make gestures and they may move some companies, but most of the actors we're focusing on in these conversations have attained a scale or reach that insulates them from all but globally coordinated collective action. Services cannot help but accrue data about the people who use their services. In many cases it can happen without any of us as customers ever knowing even if we read our customer agreements. We not only need to demand transparency but we need to find a way to extract and refund the value AND penalize those companies. Consumer habits and opinion simply haven't provided an adequate counterbalance to these companies. Look at our current crop of credit agencies; you can't even opt out of them and the stock market is not penalizing them for their outrageously poor security practice (even post-breach). Without a strong regulatory framework and advocacy for consumers, there is no set of habits or recommendations that can protect us. You can't even opt out now!
- vog 9y ago
  > A post ignoring the examples I gave immediately appears Not sure what you mean. Am I supposed to only reply if I disagree? Just because I did't express disagreement with your examples doesn't mean I didn't read them. Your question that summarized the examples was: "Why is it that folks think that paying for a product somehow fixes this?" My answer was: "Because that is a necessary condition (although not sufficient)." Your examples focused IMHO too much on the "not sufficient" part, so I added the missing counterpart ("but necessary!"). I do not disagree with you at all, my intend was just to add a missing piece to your argument. Moreover, I did not say that "demand sanity" merely means voting with your wallet. It also means demanding proper laws from your politicians.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > "Because that is a necessary condition (although not sufficient)." I think it's at best a loose correlation. And as an example: the CFPB doesn't offer pay-to-play but does a good job of its work.
    - vog 9y ago
      Pardon my lack of knowledge, but what do you mean by "CFPB"?
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. https://www.consumerfinance.gov https://www.consumerfinance.gov

by vog 9y ago

KirinDave 9y ago

> With payment, they can afford to have strong privacy rules and have others check their system integrity. But they'll only do so if there's demand for sanity. I confess it's frustrating to me that I just defined 2 alternative models that involve customer paying, break customer faith, and do not involve ads. A post ignoring the examples I gave immediately appears. There is no set of behavior YOU can engage in to encourage a company to do the right thing. You may make gestures and they may move some companies, but most of the actors we're focusing on in these conversations have attained a scale or reach that insulates them from all but globally coordinated collective action. Services cannot help but accrue data about the people who use their services. In many cases it can happen without any of us as customers ever knowing even if we read our customer agreements. We not only need to demand transparency but we need to find a way to extract and refund the value AND penalize those companies. Consumer habits and opinion simply haven't provided an adequate counterbalance to these companies. Look at our current crop of credit agencies; you can't even opt out of them and the stock market is not penalizing them for their outrageously poor security practice (even post-breach). Without a strong regulatory framework and advocacy for consumers, there is no set of habits or recommendations that can protect us. You can't even opt out now!

vog 9y ago
> A post ignoring the examples I gave immediately appears Not sure what you mean. Am I supposed to only reply if I disagree? Just because I did't express disagreement with your examples doesn't mean I didn't read them. Your question that summarized the examples was: "Why is it that folks think that paying for a product somehow fixes this?" My answer was: "Because that is a necessary condition (although not sufficient)." Your examples focused IMHO too much on the "not sufficient" part, so I added the missing counterpart ("but necessary!"). I do not disagree with you at all, my intend was just to add a missing piece to your argument. Moreover, I did not say that "demand sanity" merely means voting with your wallet. It also means demanding proper laws from your politicians.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  > "Because that is a necessary condition (although not sufficient)." I think it's at best a loose correlation. And as an example: the CFPB doesn't offer pay-to-play but does a good job of its work.
  - vog 9y ago
    Pardon my lack of knowledge, but what do you mean by "CFPB"?
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. https://www.consumerfinance.gov https://www.consumerfinance.gov