6 ms·
Wait a sec, 2 is wrong but 1 sounds positive to me. For some people this money could be incredibly important.
by KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
Wait a sec, 2 is wrong but 1 sounds positive to me. For some people this money could be incredibly important.
- joshstrange 8y agoAre we, as a society, ok with people being desperate enough to need $20 more than privacy? Or maybe privacy isn't something we should care about or at least value as much as we do as a society. Maybe I'm wrong. I think I see the dangers down the road but maybe it's just a mirage and privacy will die and it won't be used against use by people in power or with money.
- scrollaway 8y ago> Are we, as a society, ok with people being desperate enough to need $20 more than privacy? This is not the question that's being asked here. The fact is, there are people like that, and for them, these things are great. They're not solutions, they're band-aids. But if you're not ok with the situation existing, removing band-aids isn't particularly productive.
- joshstrange 8y agoThat's kind of what I was trying to get at, probably unsuccessfully. That maybe the anger shouldn't lie with FB or the fact this program exists but with the fact we are in place that people will accept that little for so much.
- not_kurt_godel 8y agoThis is like saying child labor is a band-aid, not a solution, but that we shouldn't ban it because it helps children. The whole point is that it's an inherently exploitative thing that is a net negative for society even with people who need money getting paid.
- scrollaway 8y agoRight, because installing spyware is the same thing as forcing young kids to work. What? No questions, this is creepy. But nobody was talking about a ban. The post I replied to asked whether we should be okay with people who need $20 that badly. The answer is no, we shouldn't be ok with it. But you're not solving the situation by banning this, you're making it worse if anything. "We shouldn't be ok with people being homeless." "Okay, let's make 'being homeless' illegal. Problem solved!" "???" And yes, this logic has been used before. It hasn't solved homelessness, btw.
- not_kurt_godel 8y agoWe shouldn't be ok with people needing money that badly, and we also shouldn't be ok with creating an economic dependency on those people selling their privacy, the same way we've banned economic dependency on child labor. That is not at all equivalent to banning homelessness. It's more like banning hiring homeless people to fight lions with their bare hands for entertainment.
- gruez 8y agohow is it any different than not being willing to pay $3/month for private email, and instead getting it free from google/microsoft?
- joshstrange 8y agoI don't have a good answer for you. My bad answer is I trust Google/Microsoft a little more when they say they aren't looking at your emails than I trust FB with Everything you do on your phone and no guarantee of what they are doing with it.
- emiliobumachar 8y agoI probably misunderstood you. From the very beginning of Gmail, Google has been very upfront that they do look at your emails, each and every one of them. They use automation for that, is that what you meant? No fleshy humans physically reading with their own eyeballs?
- chrischen 8y agoThis is probably something you should ask the person who's desperate enough to need that $20, than to decide for them from your point of reference.
- DoctorOetker 8y agonobody is judging the desperate person, we are judging the net effect of the rest of sociiety on them. it's provably affordable to give everyone the average rent of the world which covers housing (rent of buildings), food (rent of farmland), energy (rent of space used for solar panels, windmills, ...), natural resources (rent of mines).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- joshstrange 8y agoI'm not attacking them for taking it, I harbor no ill will toward either group #1 or #2 of my original comment. I'm asking if we are ok with this being necessary in the first place. I'm not ok with it.
- anonymous5133 8y agoI have the app installed on my phone. I have it installed because I want the $20 amazon. I don't know if I really "need" the $20 amazon but it is 100% passive once it is installed. You literally need to do nothing. Every month they send you $20. I would not uninstall it even given the privacy concerns. If you guys are so concerned about it then create something that puts cash in my pocket. I'll gladly run whatever app you want on my phone if you pay me.
- matt4077 8y agoNow you actually do make me have ill will toward #2. Enjoy your $20. A free lunch/month, right? Edit: and now they shut it down. You can thank us privacy advocates later.
- cortesoft 8y agoI mean, do you think we should outlaw strippers? They sure give up more privacy than this for money. What about other things people sacrifice for money? Coal miners? Crab fisherman?
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoPlease demonstrate how a naked person is giving up more privacy than what is being discussed in the linked article. When a person is paid to strip you, nor the house, get to read everything they do on their smartphones.
- joshstrange 8y agoI agreed with TheSpiceIsLife, I don't see how those compare. Seeing someone naked is so completely different than having full access to what they do on their smart phone. In fact, on their smart phone there are probably naked pictures.
- Legogris 8y agoTeenage strippers are frowned upon in most jurisdictions.
- travisoneill1 8y agoYou have made the assumption that the sellers are desperate. Do you have evidence for that?
- joshstrange 8y agoI was replying to the parent of my comment > For some people this money could be incredibly important. So I took this to mean "desperate enough" as in there are scales/levels of "desperate"-ness. Maybe desperate is the wrong word and the "enough" modifier wasn't obvious in my meaning. Maybe a better way to put it: Are we, as a society, ok with people needing $20 more than their privacy? I was trying to convey that I imagine I would have to be pretty desperate to give up my privacy for $20/mo.
- travisoneill1 8y agoFirst of all I doubt that most people who go into this have a feeling of desperation, especially not the teenagers that are targeted. (I do sort of have an issue with the targeting, though when I think about it, I bet that teenagers actually understand what they are giving up better than 50 year olds). So I would rephrase that as "are we, as a society, ok with people _wanting_ $20 more than privacy", to which my answer is yes. I guess I would have a problem if it were desperation, but then I don't think that in this sense being "desperate" for $20 off a smart phone plan is correct usage of the term.
- DoctorOetker 8y agowhat if parents force their children to participate?
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoWowsers! That hadn’t crossed my mind. What if you have five kids. That’s $100 a month.
- joshstrange 8y agoThat... is... disgusting and will be very hard to pass up. This whole thing just makes me sad.
- sdabdoub 8y ago> For some people this money could be incredibly important. That's exactly the problem. In Human Subjects Research this might be considered a violation of Informed Consent in the form of undue influence. From the Belmont Report [1]: An agreement to participate in research constitutes a valid consent only if voluntarily given. This element of informed consent requires conditions free of coercion and undue influence. Coercion occurs when an overt threat of harm is intentionally presented by one person to another in order to obtain compliance. Undue influence, by contrast, occurs through an offer of an excessive, unwarranted, inappropriate or improper reward or other overture in order to obtain compliance. Also, inducements that would ordinarily be acceptable may become undue influences if the subject is especially vulnerable. Note the "especially vulnerable" part at the end there. [1] https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html#xinform https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-repo...
- runeks 8y ago> > For some people this money could be incredibly important. > That's exactly the problem. I thoroughly disagree, and I feel like speaking up about this particular philosophy of consent. If I buy a used iPhone for $100 from someone who would die if they didn't get the $100, have I acted unethically? Whereas if I bought it from someone who didn't really need the $100, I wouldn't be acting unethically? This sounds not only wrong, but highly counter-productive to me, since the consequence of not entering into this trade, just because the seller really needs the money, is that the seller dies. How does that make any of us better off? As a society, we should encourage trading with people who really need the money, not label it as unethical. Whether a trade is unethical or not can be determined solely from the trade itself, not how much either (or both of the parties) needs the proceeds from the trade. Example illustrating the absurdity: imagine two people who both really need the proceeds trading with each other. Ouch! According to your philosophy, they are both acting unethically (when in fact they are doing the only reasonable thing).
- lostlogin 8y agoDoesn’t this argument give us child labour and sweat shops? Fortunately most places have laws that set a minimum standard to protect society against those who have lower ethical standards.
- amptorn 8y agoThat's like the dictionary definition of "exploitation".
- soraminazuki 8y agoThe app in question monitors all private communication that you have with others, who most certainly did not consent to have their own privacy taken away. So no, it's not okay to steal someone else's private information and put it on sale, however desperate you may be. It's even more unethical to encourage people to do so, like FB did.