4 ms·
If the two parties engaged in a transaction know all of the information about the transaction and the transactions consequences and still agree, then by definit
by tabeth 9y ago
If the two parties engaged in a transaction know all of the information about the transaction and the transactions consequences and still agree, then by definition, it must be a "fair" trade, where "fair" means fair to both parties engaging in the transaction.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoOnly if both parties have perfect and complete information about the true costs. In this example, he's selling himself way short, his entire online privacy for a few silly videos.
- paulcole 9y agoIs there a way to get more value in exchange for my online privacy? Would be interested to find out a way to get more value out of an asset I don't value highly.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoNo. It's a flawed premise, since you are not actually part of the negotiation. You are not the customer, you are the product being traded. The only way you can change this is to insist on your privacy being respected, by using tools to inhibit tracking, and by voting with your wallet, by choosing services and vendors who respect your right to privacy.
- paulcole 9y ago>You are not the customer, you are the product being traded. Yes and this is fine with me. I don't see why this is such an abhorrent concept. I want something (content) without paying (money) for it. Instead I pay with access to my data and behavior.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoAnd you're perfectly fine with not being able to negotiate the price? You're a base commodity, traded between two entities that you have very little actual information about, and you have no way of influencing the price for which your data is sold, or where it goes. To me, that is outrageously dystopian.
- paulcole 9y ago> And you're perfectly fine with not being able to negotiate the price? Yes. They have content I want that I'm not willing to give up. I have no leverage in this situation.