4 ms·

The general media describing a 'problem' doesn't mean it really exists. The media has been slating Google and Facebook for years because journalists are envious

The general media describing a 'problem' doesn't mean it really exists. The media has been slating Google and Facebook for years because journalists are envious and angry that these companies have become so influential in news distribution and monetisation. The most visible cases of this are in Europe where there are constant attempts to pass a "Google tax" on linking to news stories, but the same dynamics are present elsewhere. I tend to agree with the OP that privacy is a red herring. People do not care about sharing their data with large corporations. The idea that they do is the root cause of much wasted effort and malinvestment in the tech sector. It's a pretty idea but it's false. People will happily provide all sorts of information about themselves to get even quite trivial things for free. Companies that bet on privacy usually end up marginalised and struggling. Companies that bet on free+ads take over the world. If governments give in to the temptation to "fix" this because of powerful newspaper owners, it will be a sad day for everyone. The silent majority that doesn't actually assign much value to trivia like their purchase history or inbox contents and already have enough bills to pay will have been oppressed by the loud minority that massively over-estimates the value and importance of "private data".

eesmith 9y ago
While you might believe the OP, my comment is that the argument the OP used to justify the argument is incomplete. That is, applying the same reasoning to topics where the problem really does exist, and where the laws were (eventually) changed, shows us that a 5 year time frame is not enough time. Your statement now seems to be is that no problem actually exists. This is a different argument. I think the modern trend to put mandatory arbitration clauses into consumer contracts, and to prohibit class-action lawsuits, is a horrid perversion of justice. The government should have strong consumer protection laws and enforcement in place. Failing that, people should be able to sue. And because most people don't have much money compared to companies, they should be able to have a class-action lawsuit, with no statutory limits on possible fines or judgement. Mandatory arbitration is a big fat thumb on the scales of justice, in favor of large companies. But so far there hasn't been much in the way of problems with mandatory arbitration clauses. There are some, and they make it to the press, but given the current Congress and Administration's view on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we'll have those clauses for some years still. While in the EU, Japan, and other countries, such clauses are either illegal, or are much less tightly binding as in the US. I see privacy as the same way. At some point there will be laws which place tighter controls over what a company can do with personal data. It will likely take a massive negative event. (Eg, an anonymous public torrent of all of the URLs accessed by Comcast users, indexed by account owner name and IP address. Or just the visit history of the people that the President appoints or nominates for high positions.) For an example of a "loud minority" which changed the law for stronger privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act . This still applies to sites like Hulu, by the way. Apple, unlike Facebook and Google, isn't an ad company. They've done a pretty good job taking over the world.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Sure, but bear in mind class action lawsuits are fairly specific to the USA. Mandatory arbitration clauses are less useful outside the USA because people are less likely to sue to begin with, and cannot sue as a group. There may at some point be a huge negative event as you describe. I'm not sure there extremely rare events should be used as the basis for sweeping regulations. That has not worked out well in the past.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    I switched to that example because the same argument concerning privacy might also hold there, but where there is a difference between US law and the law elsewhere. I did that to suggest that it may be another counter-example showing how that argument isn't really a strong one. "That has not worked out well in the past." - the VPPA worked out pretty well, though of course not perfectly. It has been changed since then. I personally like the requirement that if I no longer am a customer of a company (like Netflix) then they don't keep track of my records. That's a requirement of VPPA for video records, and I don't see how that requirement won't work out well for other areas.

eesmith 9y ago

While you might believe the OP, my comment is that the argument the OP used to justify the argument is incomplete. That is, applying the same reasoning to topics where the problem really does exist, and where the laws were (eventually) changed, shows us that a 5 year time frame is not enough time. Your statement now seems to be is that no problem actually exists. This is a different argument. I think the modern trend to put mandatory arbitration clauses into consumer contracts, and to prohibit class-action lawsuits, is a horrid perversion of justice. The government should have strong consumer protection laws and enforcement in place. Failing that, people should be able to sue. And because most people don't have much money compared to companies, they should be able to have a class-action lawsuit, with no statutory limits on possible fines or judgement. Mandatory arbitration is a big fat thumb on the scales of justice, in favor of large companies. But so far there hasn't been much in the way of problems with mandatory arbitration clauses. There are some, and they make it to the press, but given the current Congress and Administration's view on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we'll have those clauses for some years still. While in the EU, Japan, and other countries, such clauses are either illegal, or are much less tightly binding as in the US. I see privacy as the same way. At some point there will be laws which place tighter controls over what a company can do with personal data. It will likely take a massive negative event. (Eg, an anonymous public torrent of all of the URLs accessed by Comcast users, indexed by account owner name and IP address. Or just the visit history of the people that the President appoints or nominates for high positions.) For an example of a "loud minority" which changed the law for stronger privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act . This still applies to sites like Hulu, by the way. Apple, unlike Facebook and Google, isn't an ad company. They've done a pretty good job taking over the world.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Sure, but bear in mind class action lawsuits are fairly specific to the USA. Mandatory arbitration clauses are less useful outside the USA because people are less likely to sue to begin with, and cannot sue as a group. There may at some point be a huge negative event as you describe. I'm not sure there extremely rare events should be used as the basis for sweeping regulations. That has not worked out well in the past.
- eesmith 9y ago
  I switched to that example because the same argument concerning privacy might also hold there, but where there is a difference between US law and the law elsewhere. I did that to suggest that it may be another counter-example showing how that argument isn't really a strong one. "That has not worked out well in the past." - the VPPA worked out pretty well, though of course not perfectly. It has been changed since then. I personally like the requirement that if I no longer am a customer of a company (like Netflix) then they don't keep track of my records. That's a requirement of VPPA for video records, and I don't see how that requirement won't work out well for other areas.