4 ms·
it is a response to an industry which failed to regulate itself Pretty much everything websites do with your data are from voluntary exchange. We decide to sub
by ttoinou 8y ago
it is a response to an industry which failed to regulate itself
Pretty much everything websites do with your data are from voluntary exchange. We decide to subscribe to a website a visit it regularly and give to it your data. We decide to surf some website without ad blockers / web trackers extensions, and we don't want to pay for social medias and some of us actually like well targeted ads. I fail to see what the corps should have done to regulate themselves
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
- ttoinou 8y agoYou need to make a sentence to make a point
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y agoI am not making a point, I am simply providing a reference for you to read up on the basics of the stuff that you so confidently speak about.
- ttoinou 8y agoSo if all my friends and family are on facebook, I am ~forced~ to use facebook ? All my friends and family live in my state so I guess I don't have a choice and have to live my whole life in my motherland
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y agoIf you want to productively engage in a conversation, it isn't helpful if you use the weakest possible example for the other side's position to then dismiss it. That is just a slightly less obvious version of straw-manning. Also, your definition of "voluntary" as "the victim could conceivably have done something to prevent it but didn't" is very unusual and completely useless. By that definition, if someone poisons your food with a poison that is detectable with a test known in the literature, and you then eat it without testing it first, you have voluntarily let yourself be poisoned. If you get shot because you didn't wear bullet-proof clothing, then you voluntarily let yourself be shot. That's neither what "voluntary" normally means, nor would it in any way be a useful definition, as essentially everything that happens to you would have to be considered voluntary.
- ttoinou 8y agoYou did not express a position here, just provide a link, so I had to make assumptions
- Fnoord 8y ago> So if all my friends and family are on facebook, I am ~forced~ to use facebook ? "The classic example is the telephone, where a greater number of users increases the value to each. A positive externality is created when a telephone is purchased without its owner intending to create value for other users, but does so regardless. Online social networks work similarly, with sites like Twitter and Facebook increasing in value to each member as more users join." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
- ttoinou 8y agoI can read, I don't see the link with the discussion. I know people who are not on facebook. They made the decision. They have free will.
- dizzystar 8y agoI opened a Facebook about one year ago. The information they had on me was rather disturbing. I never gave Facebook permission, directly or implied, to track my circle of past friends or make assumptions about my personal interests.
- ttoinou 8y agoPermission was implied when you sent your data to them. Website you visit send you webpages that your browser parse and connect to every tracking widgets present in the html. If you don't like it, configure better your browser.
- Fnoord 8y ago"Implied"? That's not how opt-in works, sorry.
- ttoinou 8y agoYOUR computer sends your data. YOU let it do that. If you don't want your computer to do it, don't surf internet or configure your browser / install extensions
- Fnoord 8y agoThat's not how opt-in or JavaScript works together with law. If a hostile website serves hostile JavaScript code, it won't be "it was your computer who ran it"; THEY served it. The standard experience will need to adhere to privacy laws. GLHF with GDPR in 2 weeks :)
- ttoinou 8y agoYour message makes me think that if there's a responsibility involved in theses issues, websites that have tracker widgets obviously shares a part of it
- dizzystar 8y ago
- Fnoord 8y ago> I fail to see what the corps should have done to regulate themselves Being transparent, opaque, and using opt-in. > Pretty much everything websites do with your data are from voluntary exchange. Not at all. If it were voluntary, I'd visit a website and it'd say: "by using this website, you consent that we sell your profiled data to company A for purpose X." 1) They don't word it like that, they word it extremely vague. 2) Its obfuscated and opt-out (adblocker is opt-out). 3) If we knew beforehand what exactly was done with our data we could knowingly consent. We don't know exactly what is being done with our data. To whom is it sold? For what purpose? 4) On the websites where I bought a subscription/premium the ads are turned off but the tracking is NOT.
- kome 8y ago> Pretty much everything websites do with your data are from voluntary exchange. Are you joking or are you in denial that much? We have no control most of the time, especially "normal" users. Ad blockers or JavaScript blockers may help, but they are not normal.
- ttoinou 8y agoNormal users don't have any control because nobody cares enough to take time to dive into this boring issues. Privacy issues are not (yet) a billion dollar business