5 ms·

> it's not Facebook's fault if people don't know their data will be used for advertising, like it's not a tobacco's manufacture's fault if the user doesn't know

> it's not Facebook's fault if people don't know their data will be used for advertising, like it's not a tobacco's manufacture's fault if the user doesn't know cigarettes give you cancer. Lawmakers (at least in the USA) disagree with you fundamentally. That’s why cigarettes have a big warning label telling consumers that it gives you cancer. I think comparing tobacco and data privacy is like comparing apples and oranges. But the common principle stands: if people might reasonably find a product objectionable because of characteristics that aren’t readily clear, a reasonable effort ought to be made to educate them.

nkkollaw 9y ago
Yes but then you end up having warnings on everything--like in the States. A knife is potentially dangerous, a rope is potentially dangerous, just about anything is potentially dangerous! I think it's fine to expect people have a working brain. On the internet it's not immediately clear that if you upload a naked picture or post a racist comment it will stay there _forever_, and might very easily affect you negatively _for an indefinite amount of time_ (employers can see it or do background checks, etc.), but that's just how it is.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- apazzolini 9y ago
  You argued PaulStatezny's point for him in your reply. It is "immediately clear" that a knife is dangerous, and nobody expects a warning label on that. It's not "immediately clear" however that smoking gives you cancer or what is possibly being done with your data at Facebook, and thus there should be warnings.
  - nkkollaw 9y ago
    Why would it be immediately clear that a knife is dangerous? Why is it NOT clear that the contents of a steaming cup of freshly-made coffee that somebody is handling you may be hot, then? It's NOT clear that if you marry the wrong person you can end up in lot of pain, fighting in court for 10 years, losing all you have, etc., so should the priest or government official read a warning before declaring you married? When you signed up for Facebook, you agreed to their TOS. Compared to the knife, cup, and wife someone has told you _explicitly_ what's going to happen and how, and _you have agreed to that_. What makes it unclear, then?
    - jonathanyc 9y ago
      You realize essentially the only social reason for marriages to be solemnized by a city official or a government official is because it forces people to at least slightly consider the consequences, right? Like it or not, there is not yet a similar sort of widespread awareness of the risks of Facebook. If you asked a random person on the street to explain what could go wrong with a marriage, they could give you so many examples that troubled marriages are literally one of the classic sets ups for jokes. If you asked the average person to explain how the Cambridge Analytica breach happened, or what Facebook can do with the permission to see which WiFi network you’re connected to, for example, they would not be able to give a good explanation.

nkkollaw 9y ago

Yes but then you end up having warnings on everything--like in the States. A knife is potentially dangerous, a rope is potentially dangerous, just about anything is potentially dangerous! I think it's fine to expect people have a working brain. On the internet it's not immediately clear that if you upload a naked picture or post a racist comment it will stay there _forever_, and might very easily affect you negatively _for an indefinite amount of time_ (employers can see it or do background checks, etc.), but that's just how it is.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
apazzolini 9y ago
You argued PaulStatezny's point for him in your reply. It is "immediately clear" that a knife is dangerous, and nobody expects a warning label on that. It's not "immediately clear" however that smoking gives you cancer or what is possibly being done with your data at Facebook, and thus there should be warnings.
- nkkollaw 9y ago
  Why would it be immediately clear that a knife is dangerous? Why is it NOT clear that the contents of a steaming cup of freshly-made coffee that somebody is handling you may be hot, then? It's NOT clear that if you marry the wrong person you can end up in lot of pain, fighting in court for 10 years, losing all you have, etc., so should the priest or government official read a warning before declaring you married? When you signed up for Facebook, you agreed to their TOS. Compared to the knife, cup, and wife someone has told you _explicitly_ what's going to happen and how, and _you have agreed to that_. What makes it unclear, then?
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    You realize essentially the only social reason for marriages to be solemnized by a city official or a government official is because it forces people to at least slightly consider the consequences, right? Like it or not, there is not yet a similar sort of widespread awareness of the risks of Facebook. If you asked a random person on the street to explain what could go wrong with a marriage, they could give you so many examples that troubled marriages are literally one of the classic sets ups for jokes. If you asked the average person to explain how the Cambridge Analytica breach happened, or what Facebook can do with the permission to see which WiFi network you’re connected to, for example, they would not be able to give a good explanation.