3 ms·
> most innovative companies If that innovation is about stalking people online & offline to serve them ads then no thanks.
by Rjevski 8y ago
> most innovative companies
If that innovation is about stalking people online & offline to serve them ads then no thanks.
- Mirioron 8y agoSure hope you don't use Google in your life.
- Rjevski 8y agoDuckDuckGo is now good enough that I only use Google services a few times a day as a fallback. Not saying I’m happy with that (I wish I could just pay Google a fair price and trust them not to stalk me) but I don’t have much choice I’m afraid.
- pmoriarty 8y agoThe abuse goes much further than merely serving people ads. Harassment, intimidation, stalking, identity theft, profiling, targeting based on political opinions or interests, blackmail, evisceration of privacy, and subversion of democracy are all enabled by such "innovation". As more people become victims of these, and such abuses are publicized, the opposition to such surveillance will grow.
- darawk 8y agoI hear this sentiment expressed a lot, but I rarely see anyone actually articulate their rationale. What do you think the downsides of that are?
- ahelwer 8y agoI find in myself a very human desire to not have every private action subject to registration & scrutiny by unknown entities. No further justification is needed.
- darawk 8y agoI think quite a bit further justification is needed. That's why I asked the question. You're proposing companies have their rights circumscribed. You need to justify that.
- ahelwer 8y agoAll justifications must ultimately rest on some axiom or set of axioms. You want to recurse down some more levels, that's fine. I don't feel the need. My answer satisfies in itself. It is an answer which recognizes human dignity.
- darawk 8y agoYou believe it's axiomatic that you are entitled to the services of Google and Facebook and they are not entitled to save the information that you willingly send them during the use of their services?
- Rjevski 8y agoEven if we assume that everyone involved in processing your data is trustworthy (and that’s a very big if), there’s always the risk of an accidental data breach. If you think Equifax was bad enough, think for a second what would be the consequences of a breach at Google or Facebook who literally have your entire online history, private messages (Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts, etc) and a good overview of your offline life (Google Calendar, emails, Android device location history, etc).
- phobosdeimos 8y agoBecause I'm not naive. The purpose of business is to manipulate and monetize me. Wring every cent from me that they can. I don't mind, this is called capitalism. But I don't want to be a powerless victim. I have my own interests after all.
- darawk 8y agoYou're a 'powerless victim' here? It seems to me that you could just not use these services. You could use alternative services. But you don't want to, and apparently not wanting to is worth more to you than your privacy.
- Rjevski 8y agoThe problem with not using the services is that stalking becomes ubiquitous. You can choose to not use Facebook, but when every single company starts stalking you (like your mobile carrier) you no longer have a way out. This is why we need regulations to make sure this doesn’t spread even more.
- darawk 8y agoThat would be true. Except that if people cared enough about it, it would be a competitive advantage to not do this. In some contexts, people do care, for instance. Companies like DuckDuckGo and Apple make privacy a selling point. Telecoms are a bit of a special case, since they're a regulated monopoly. I'm all in favor of them being forced to respect privacy, since consumers don't have choice there. But in the case of internet giants like Google/FB, i'm much less on board.