3 ms·

I agree, they are on completely separate planes of severity. Sharing information in the context of a real-life relationship, especially with someone who wields

I agree, they are on completely separate planes of severity. Sharing information in the context of a real-life relationship, especially with someone who wields emotional, physical, or financial power over the subject, is far worse than sharing it with some impersonal corporate optimization algorithm. The main reason to be concerned about corporate surveillance datasets is that they could, someday leak or be weaponized into the subject's personal relationships. Surveillance explicitly for this purpose is beyond the pale. Like most people I know, I had great parents who would have used this responsibly or not at all. Others were not so lucky. Whether it was homophobia, abuse, or simply overbearing parenting styles, some opacity in the parent-child relationship was critical to their sanity and survival as young adults. Particularly in college, where parents still have "power of the purse" (so could force their kids to accept MDM) but tend to back off out of logistical necessity (until now?).

olliej 7y ago
I do forget just how much support college/uni students get from their parents in the US. But even in the US I suspect pure financial support is not the norm - health insurance extending to “children” who live elsewhere is obviously super important in the US
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 7y ago
  Sticker price is for rich kids. Normal people require need-based financial aid to afford 4-year degrees. The federal government computes an "expected family contribution" based on your parent's finances, and your scholarships and loans are sized accordingly. An 18-year-old from a middle-class background would have an EFC far greater than she could pay out of pocket, and to borrow it she'd need her parents to cosign. Actually, without their cooperation she couldn't even get the EFC, since they need to open their books and sign the FAFSA. She'd be staring down sticker price on her own. Not even emancipation can break the link. She'd have to provide a documented history of child abuse, serve in the military, get married, or wait until age 25. More likely, reduce her ambitions to a community college associate's degree she can afford at sticker price on her own part-time wages. The fact that our government provides a number called "expected family contribution" is good evidence that, at least officially, contributing to children's educations is the norm.

olliej 7y ago

I do forget just how much support college/uni students get from their parents in the US. But even in the US I suspect pure financial support is not the norm - health insurance extending to “children” who live elsewhere is obviously super important in the US

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 7y ago
Sticker price is for rich kids. Normal people require need-based financial aid to afford 4-year degrees. The federal government computes an "expected family contribution" based on your parent's finances, and your scholarships and loans are sized accordingly. An 18-year-old from a middle-class background would have an EFC far greater than she could pay out of pocket, and to borrow it she'd need her parents to cosign. Actually, without their cooperation she couldn't even get the EFC, since they need to open their books and sign the FAFSA. She'd be staring down sticker price on her own. Not even emancipation can break the link. She'd have to provide a documented history of child abuse, serve in the military, get married, or wait until age 25. More likely, reduce her ambitions to a community college associate's degree she can afford at sticker price on her own part-time wages. The fact that our government provides a number called "expected family contribution" is good evidence that, at least officially, contributing to children's educations is the norm.