4 ms·

Are you suggesting that somehow any law is inherently wrong if it regulates trade at all? Trade is a means to the end of having healthy, productive populations.

Are you suggesting that somehow any law is inherently wrong if it regulates trade at all? Trade is a means to the end of having healthy, productive populations. It's not something to prioritize above all else, especially in cases where trade hurts the well-being of populations. In the specific case of Facebook, near-zero of the users actually understand either what they are giving or the full extent of what they are getting or not (especially since the latter changes constantly as FB alters their policies and algorithms etc). So, it's more like "give us stuff you don't understand with ramifications you haven't thought about, and you get a complex, somewhat unpredictable, changing service." This is nothing like the theoretical trade between two participants with equal power and complete information.

cabaalis 8y ago
Using strictly my interpretation of what I read above, if the person decides not to allow their information to be used by the service, the service is not allowed to deny them use. That's the part I think is an issue, and of course I may be misinterpreting. I have purchased a house, and used a mortgage to do so. In getting that mortgage, I was presented with reams and reams of paper that I had to agree to and sign. The basic facts of the loan, however, were mandated by the government that they be disclosed to me in as simple and straightforward terms as possible. That mandate for disclosure should be sufficient for a person to decide to do business with a service, regardless of the nature of what is being transacted. If what I read here is accurate, it's akin to me saying "No, I won't sign any of this. Now give me my keys."
- bulatb 8y ago
  In your bank analogy, the mortgage terms would say you have to let the bank install a camera in your bedroom. No camera, no keys. The bank is not required to give you a mortgage. The regulation says that if they want to offer one, they can't include "No camera, no keys" as a condition.

cabaalis 8y ago

Using strictly my interpretation of what I read above, if the person decides not to allow their information to be used by the service, the service is not allowed to deny them use. That's the part I think is an issue, and of course I may be misinterpreting. I have purchased a house, and used a mortgage to do so. In getting that mortgage, I was presented with reams and reams of paper that I had to agree to and sign. The basic facts of the loan, however, were mandated by the government that they be disclosed to me in as simple and straightforward terms as possible. That mandate for disclosure should be sufficient for a person to decide to do business with a service, regardless of the nature of what is being transacted. If what I read here is accurate, it's akin to me saying "No, I won't sign any of this. Now give me my keys."

bulatb 8y ago
In your bank analogy, the mortgage terms would say you have to let the bank install a camera in your bedroom. No camera, no keys. The bank is not required to give you a mortgage. The regulation says that if they want to offer one, they can't include "No camera, no keys" as a condition.