7 ms·

>Counterpoint: I do own my data, including my data about the people who visited my website. You're not actually refuting his point about this being data feudal

>Counterpoint: I do own my data, including my data about the people who visited my website. You're not actually refuting his point about this being data feudalism. What you're saying is that you're the lord of this website and in exchange for letting serfs onto it you have a right to their data. It's the same thing as traditional land/labor feudalism with just a few words exchanged.

JoshTriplett 9y ago
The rest of my post refutes that point; the first line was intended to demonstrate how terminology like possessiveness over data is both ambiguous and unhelpful. And as for the "feudalism" analogy: no, I'm most assuredly not saying that, don't put words in my mouth. If people voluntarily visit my site and send me data, the natural consequence is that I now have that data and can do whatever I want with it. Anything other than that would be an artificial restriction, and one not justified by simple possessiveness on data given that the same possessiveness applies in the other direction as well.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  the natural consequence is that I now have that data and can do whatever I want with it. You're aware that the EU quite violently disagrees with this assessment and member states, starting in 2018, will have the ability to levy cripling fines on such behavior.
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    I'm aware. I'm sure that'll do wonders in encouraging more incredible and compelling web applications to be created, outside the EU. It'll hurt multinational companies that have offices in the EU, make it harder for people trying to start or develop such sites in the EU, and otherwise continue to be irrelevant for the huge number of sites over which the EU has no jurisdiction.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  that's not really true. kids under 13 have laws around that data and how you collect it in the US. And if you can have laws to protect young kids you can have laws around what you do with older people's data.
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    That's a ridiculous set of laws that causes many problems for various website owners, and many very reasonably take the approach of "if you ever give us any indication that you're someone to whom these laws apply we'll ban you until you're not", rather than attempting to meet those restrictions.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >If people voluntarily visit my site and send me data Plenty of serfs were voluntary as well. If your only problem with feudalism is that some serfs weren't then maybe you are a feudalist. >the natural consequence is that I now have that data and can do whatever I want with it. Anything other than that would be an artificial restriction No no no. Nothing here is "natural" OR "artificial." Property relations, your ownership of a website at all, the fact that you receive any data about who is visiting it, all of these things can be said to be as natural or artifical as the person speaking wishes them to be.
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    My problem with the term "feudalism" is that it utterly fails as an analogy. People use websites, and draw value from them, and give data to them (and random partner sites and ad networks, which is a bigger problem). They don't swear fealty to them. It's an intentionally provocative term with little bearing on concrete details, and I have about as much interest in arguing about whether it applies as I do in arguing whether data is blue, yellow, or green. As for natural and artificial, my point is that regardless of the nature of the relationship, it's artificial to hand someone a pile of data but then arbitrarily restrict what they can do with that data. That's true whether you're talking about copyright, DRM, or personal data.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >As for natural and artificial, my point is that regardless of the nature of the relationship, it's artificial to hand someone a pile of data but then arbitrarily restrict what they can do with that data. That's true whether you're talking about copyright, DRM, or personal data. Your ownership of a website is just as artificial as a government restricting what you can do with it. That's why I say the terms natural and artifical have no place here. >People use websites, and draw value from them, and give data to them Serfs use tenures and draw value from them and give loyalty to them. The problem in your sentence is that I believe it should be rephrased like this: "People use websites, and draw value from them, and give data to their owners" which makes the feudal analogy a lot clearer and represents your own views better, for example the "I" in this sentence: "I do own my data, including my data about the people who visited my website." >They don't swear fealty to them. By fealty you mean what? Swearing service to a lord in exchange for a plot of land? But you expect visitors to your website to swear some of their data to you in exchange for the info on your site. >It's an intentionally provocative term with little bearing on concrete details You and I disagree on that then.

JoshTriplett 9y ago

The rest of my post refutes that point; the first line was intended to demonstrate how terminology like possessiveness over data is both ambiguous and unhelpful. And as for the "feudalism" analogy: no, I'm most assuredly not saying that, don't put words in my mouth. If people voluntarily visit my site and send me data, the natural consequence is that I now have that data and can do whatever I want with it. Anything other than that would be an artificial restriction, and one not justified by simple possessiveness on data given that the same possessiveness applies in the other direction as well.

CaptainZapp 9y ago
the natural consequence is that I now have that data and can do whatever I want with it. You're aware that the EU quite violently disagrees with this assessment and member states, starting in 2018, will have the ability to levy cripling fines on such behavior.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  I'm aware. I'm sure that'll do wonders in encouraging more incredible and compelling web applications to be created, outside the EU. It'll hurt multinational companies that have offices in the EU, make it harder for people trying to start or develop such sites in the EU, and otherwise continue to be irrelevant for the huge number of sites over which the EU has no jurisdiction.
sharemywin 9y ago
that's not really true. kids under 13 have laws around that data and how you collect it in the US. And if you can have laws to protect young kids you can have laws around what you do with older people's data.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  That's a ridiculous set of laws that causes many problems for various website owners, and many very reasonably take the approach of "if you ever give us any indication that you're someone to whom these laws apply we'll ban you until you're not", rather than attempting to meet those restrictions.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>If people voluntarily visit my site and send me data Plenty of serfs were voluntary as well. If your only problem with feudalism is that some serfs weren't then maybe you are a feudalist. >the natural consequence is that I now have that data and can do whatever I want with it. Anything other than that would be an artificial restriction No no no. Nothing here is "natural" OR "artificial." Property relations, your ownership of a website at all, the fact that you receive any data about who is visiting it, all of these things can be said to be as natural or artifical as the person speaking wishes them to be.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  My problem with the term "feudalism" is that it utterly fails as an analogy. People use websites, and draw value from them, and give data to them (and random partner sites and ad networks, which is a bigger problem). They don't swear fealty to them. It's an intentionally provocative term with little bearing on concrete details, and I have about as much interest in arguing about whether it applies as I do in arguing whether data is blue, yellow, or green. As for natural and artificial, my point is that regardless of the nature of the relationship, it's artificial to hand someone a pile of data but then arbitrarily restrict what they can do with that data. That's true whether you're talking about copyright, DRM, or personal data.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >As for natural and artificial, my point is that regardless of the nature of the relationship, it's artificial to hand someone a pile of data but then arbitrarily restrict what they can do with that data. That's true whether you're talking about copyright, DRM, or personal data. Your ownership of a website is just as artificial as a government restricting what you can do with it. That's why I say the terms natural and artifical have no place here. >People use websites, and draw value from them, and give data to them Serfs use tenures and draw value from them and give loyalty to them. The problem in your sentence is that I believe it should be rephrased like this: "People use websites, and draw value from them, and give data to their owners" which makes the feudal analogy a lot clearer and represents your own views better, for example the "I" in this sentence: "I do own my data, including my data about the people who visited my website." >They don't swear fealty to them. By fealty you mean what? Swearing service to a lord in exchange for a plot of land? But you expect visitors to your website to swear some of their data to you in exchange for the info on your site. >It's an intentionally provocative term with little bearing on concrete details You and I disagree on that then.