4 ms·

I believe you meant insidiously? Not sure why you make it sound so sinister.

• ianai 8y ago
  Right word. A world where you may have no privacy and must choose how it is sold (directly, indirectly) is insidious.
  • bobwaycott 8y ago
    Your phrasing is rather off then. Your original statement was that we might perhaps, in the future, accept payment upfront for our privacy (whatever that might mean--are we getting paid for our data or for our privacy?) or that we'd be paid through insidiously free services. So ... how are these insidiously free services paying us? In features? More specifically, because of your phrasing, how are they paying us in this potential future for our privacy? Your clarification here makes your intention far clearer than your original comment did. It doesn't look like you're concerned with how we might be paid; instead, you're attempting to shine a light on the problem of being paid for our personal data / intruding on our privacy at all. Am I parsing you correctly now?
    • ianai 8y ago
      The new meta is no one has privacy. The default state of the internet invades your privacy. Period. So maybe down the road we’ll still have no privacy. But we can opt to sell it wholesale, all at once, instead of being lured into divulging it. You’d be selling personally authentic data as opposed to noisy metrics. I don’t know what good the marketers would provide you. Possibly free services (email) sans trackers.