3 ms·

This isnt a nothing to hide argument because there is fair trade of information, not compulsory extraction. Also the information is not publicly available And

This isnt a nothing to hide argument because there is fair trade of information, not compulsory extraction. Also the information is not publicly available And the counter argument is an FUD theory that all information should be banned because it can potentially be misused

jacquesm 8y ago
> This isnt a nothing to hide argument because there is fair trade of information You can have the one with or without the other. > Also the information is not publicly available Until the next hack or subpoena. > And the counter argument is an FUD theory that all information should be banned because it can potentially be misused That is nonsensical and a strawman argument to boot.
- buboard 8y ago
  > You can have the one with or without the other. then that is not fair trade > Until the next hack or subpoena. here, the FUD again > That is nonsensical and a strawman argument to boot. if something doesnt make sense i can explain. where is the strawman/
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > here, the FUD again It's only FUD if it does not happen. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/facebook-hack-affected-3-million-in-europe-first-big-test-for-gdpr.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/facebook-hack-affected-3-mil... And tens of thousands of other examples besides that one. > if something doesnt make sense i can explain. where is the strawman/ Nobody said 'all information has to be banned'. You made that up.
    - buboard 8y ago
      i believe we disagree on whether state should serve the people or the other way around.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
How exactly is Facebook spying on me on every damn website without ever even telling me about it, let alone asking me, and with giving me nothing in return, a fair trade? How exactly is Facebook pressuring people into using their services by establishing a quasi-monopoly on the social graph a fair trade?
- buboard 8y ago
  If you were getting nothing in return you wouldn't be using it. I believe that facebook should be transparent about the kind of inferences they do for you, but they should also be able to deny you service if you don't agree. Whether facebook is a monopoly is a different matter, which is orthogonal to the fact that they offer you a valuable service in return for advertising, which is imho a fair trade, as long as both of you are clear about the consequences.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > If you were getting nothing in return you wouldn't be using it. I am not using it, obviously. So, how is that a fair trade? > Whether facebook is a monopoly is a different matter, which is orthogonal to the fact No, it is not orthogonal because a monopoly inhibits price discovery, so your argument is essentially: Because you are willing to pay the price that the monopoly demands, it's a fair trade.

jacquesm 8y ago

> This isnt a nothing to hide argument because there is fair trade of information You can have the one with or without the other. > Also the information is not publicly available Until the next hack or subpoena. > And the counter argument is an FUD theory that all information should be banned because it can potentially be misused That is nonsensical and a strawman argument to boot.

buboard 8y ago
> You can have the one with or without the other. then that is not fair trade > Until the next hack or subpoena. here, the FUD again > That is nonsensical and a strawman argument to boot. if something doesnt make sense i can explain. where is the strawman/
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > here, the FUD again It's only FUD if it does not happen. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/facebook-hack-affected-3-million-in-europe-first-big-test-for-gdpr.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/facebook-hack-affected-3-mil... And tens of thousands of other examples besides that one. > if something doesnt make sense i can explain. where is the strawman/ Nobody said 'all information has to be banned'. You made that up.
  - buboard 8y ago
    i believe we disagree on whether state should serve the people or the other way around.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

How exactly is Facebook spying on me on every damn website without ever even telling me about it, let alone asking me, and with giving me nothing in return, a fair trade? How exactly is Facebook pressuring people into using their services by establishing a quasi-monopoly on the social graph a fair trade?

buboard 8y ago
If you were getting nothing in return you wouldn't be using it. I believe that facebook should be transparent about the kind of inferences they do for you, but they should also be able to deny you service if you don't agree. Whether facebook is a monopoly is a different matter, which is orthogonal to the fact that they offer you a valuable service in return for advertising, which is imho a fair trade, as long as both of you are clear about the consequences.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > If you were getting nothing in return you wouldn't be using it. I am not using it, obviously. So, how is that a fair trade? > Whether facebook is a monopoly is a different matter, which is orthogonal to the fact No, it is not orthogonal because a monopoly inhibits price discovery, so your argument is essentially: Because you are willing to pay the price that the monopoly demands, it's a fair trade.