3 ms·

Because the user is the product. It's a data mining operation wrapped in a deceptive package.

Nextgrid 7y ago
We should have regulation to prevent that. There’s nothing wrong with ad-sponsored products but they should be clearly labelled as such. As it stands this is fraud.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  I sincerely disagree. To see why, try writing down a proposed law. One will quickly find it's the new "cookie warning" (thanks EU!). Consider the proposed "ad-sponsored" label that is required to be on the product. Say you want to sell a product, initially you promise to keep your users data and not sell it, therefore you sell your product legally (in the jurstiction with this new law) without the "ad-sponsored" label. Later on, you are not doing well financially, and that database is worth money. Company B makes an offer to buy your company. Is company B bound by your past actions? Nope, nor can they be; that's how mistakes get fixed. You could have instead created a contract with each of your clients, but you didnt. If you had, the client would have the ability to control you, and you may not even be able to sell your company, or it might not be worth anything due to the N contracts involved. Then consider the pointless regulatary enforcement system required. How would one even approach that? Forced registration of every company that happens to get some customer data? It's a endless cycle, that creates no value, and costs the taxpayers money. A law requiring some specific action is almost always the wrong reaction. The only general solution compatiable with a free society is for people to become aware of the value of their data and who they hand it to. In this specific case, property rights should fix it. Either you get to break your contract because the owner breaches it by installing a camera in your livingroom, or do it from the renters rights side. Best left up to the states so you get a market of ideas.

We should have regulation to prevent that. There’s nothing wrong with ad-sponsored products but they should be clearly labelled as such. As it stands this is fraud.

jakeogh 7y ago
I sincerely disagree. To see why, try writing down a proposed law. One will quickly find it's the new "cookie warning" (thanks EU!). Consider the proposed "ad-sponsored" label that is required to be on the product. Say you want to sell a product, initially you promise to keep your users data and not sell it, therefore you sell your product legally (in the jurstiction with this new law) without the "ad-sponsored" label. Later on, you are not doing well financially, and that database is worth money. Company B makes an offer to buy your company. Is company B bound by your past actions? Nope, nor can they be; that's how mistakes get fixed. You could have instead created a contract with each of your clients, but you didnt. If you had, the client would have the ability to control you, and you may not even be able to sell your company, or it might not be worth anything due to the N contracts involved. Then consider the pointless regulatary enforcement system required. How would one even approach that? Forced registration of every company that happens to get some customer data? It's a endless cycle, that creates no value, and costs the taxpayers money. A law requiring some specific action is almost always the wrong reaction. The only general solution compatiable with a free society is for people to become aware of the value of their data and who they hand it to. In this specific case, property rights should fix it. Either you get to break your contract because the owner breaches it by installing a camera in your livingroom, or do it from the renters rights side. Best left up to the states so you get a market of ideas.