4 ms·
There is no "we" in this. I would express it: >Why should "I" accept that privacy intrusions are okay? As long as it's a voluntary business relationship, there
by black_bird 7y ago
There is no "we" in this. I would express it:
>Why should "I" accept that privacy intrusions are okay?
As long as it's a voluntary business relationship, there's nothing to say. If your scale of preferences tells you that privacy is a more important factor than the service itself, then use the services that suit your demand, but don't prevent others from acting differently.
>If we as a society decide to limit how companies can collect and use our data...
Why? I don't have the right to decide for you. If you decide to get married, do I have the right to tell you how to proceed in your contractual relationship with your partner? As long as it is a voluntary contract and the individual rights of others are respected..., does the rest of society or the government have the right to decide or impose rules for you or your partner on how your association proceeds?
"Take it, leave it or shut up." If the concept of "privacy" is as important to society as it is to you, it will lead to an increase in demand and supply linked to services that incorporate greater privacy into their products. You don't need to do anything about it, but whatever you try to do in an arbitrary, subjective and coercive way, it will be objectively immoral and violent towards the rest of the people.
>Companies don't have a right to their business model.
They have that right because we all have it, just as you have the right to plan your life but you don't have the right to plan someone else's life.
- majewsky 7y ago> If your scale of preferences tells you that privacy is a more important factor than the service itself, then use the services that suit your demand, but don't prevent others from acting differently. That's completely ignoring network effects: I want to delete WhatsApp from my phone. But if I do so, it means I won't be taking part in everyday family life anymore.
- black_bird 7y agoThen you agree with me. Your preference is greater for "being in contact with someone" than your privacy or other factors. Case closed. Or are you saying that someone should force your family members to use another product that suits your personal preferences?
- majewsky 7y agoI'm saying that, as a society, we should not allow products that don't respect people's fundamental freedoms. The disagreement between us is whether privacy should be considered a constitution-level fundamental freedom. In fact, in my country (Germany), the Supreme Court has ruled that it is.
- jakelazaroff 7y agoShould you be able to sell human organs? Child pornography? If you agree to let someone pay your family and kill you, should they be chargeable with murder? These are all voluntary business relationships. They're illegal because society has mostly agreed that there should be a limit to how much a transaction can extract from someone. That people, even at their most desperate, should still be protected. And yes, the bounds here can be arbitrary. Selling organs is illegal while selling sperm and eggs is not. But ultimately, most everyone agrees that we should draw the line somewhere. The entire point of a society is a set of norms around how to interact with others.