4 ms·

> 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, the

> 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 ago
That'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 ago
This 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 ago
  Right, 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 ago
    We 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.

joshstrange 8y ago

That'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 ago

This 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 ago
Right, 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 ago
  We 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.