3 ms·

The argument goes, if the monetization model is unethical, then it shouldn't exist. I'll demonstrate this by taking your post and rewriting it about a different

The argument goes, if the monetization model is unethical, then it shouldn't exist. I'll demonstrate this by taking your post and rewriting it about a different industry. I am NOT saying these are the same situation, because most people have different views on tracking vs child labor. I am demonstrating that the argument makes sense IF you think tracking is similarly immoral. > Ok, that's nice in a fantasy world, but in the real world a lot of people/clothing companies rely on cheap manufacturing, and cheap manufacturing for for the most part, requires child labor. So now if you legally force clothing companies to allow consumers to decline "child labor" you are basically allowing consumers to reject clothing companies' monetization model and get their clothes at a loss to the company. And why should clothing companies allow that? edit: maybe I've couched my argument a little too much. I think it's a pretty good comparison, actually: I think most (but not all!) people agree that tracking and child labor are bad, but turn a blind eye because they enable cheap/free stuff.

Aunche 6y ago
The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant. If the merchant is offering me content for the exchange of information, why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? It's already legal to "force" your customers to exchange money for content. If anything, it's even worse because a lot of children end up malnourished because their parents spent to much money on entertainment.
- smichel17 6y ago
  > The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant This is a fair counterpoint; it is not a perfect comparison. I think it did its job though, to clarify (now with your help) the actual point of contention: > why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? Most nations have a concept of human/inalienable/natural rights, which cannot be signed away. For example, it's usually illegal to sell yourself into slavery. In the GDPR's view, privacy is such a right. Do you think the government should not be able to stop these transactions at all, or do you think privacy should not fall into that category? Or a different objection I haven't thought of. --- I have my own views, but I'm not really interested in arguing them. It largely comes down to what moral system you subscribe to, which I think is a waste of time to discuss on HN (or any public forum) -- there's too many people on the internet to argue with everyone you disagree with; better to learn to get along, and focus advocacy on communities closer to home. As for why I comment at all: figuring out how to frame issues is not a waste of time — it's much easier (less emotional) and provides a useful reference for future conversation.
  - Aunche 6y ago
    I appreciate your response, and I think my view is broadened as well :) > do you think privacy should not fall into that category? This one. Supermarket rewards are an example exchanging privacy for money that is rather uncontroversial. Obviously tech companies collect a lot more information, but I believe the same principle applies.
bonoboTP 6y ago
The major difference is that the child labor affects someone else negatively, while tracking affects the consumer themselves.
- smichel17 6y ago
  Fair. See my cousin reply to Aunche for slightly more detail.
ggreer 6y ago
I'll bite that bullet and argue that child labor laws, like GDPR, are well-intentioned but cause more harm than they prevent. Let me explain. First: If child labor laws were abolished tomorrow, almost no parent in a developed country would encourage their children work, and almost no employer would accept child labor. Parents want their children to succeed in life, and in developed countries that means sending them to school until they have enough knowledge to work a lucrative job. So a parent must be desperate for money or have a very low opinion of formal schooling if they're willing to let their child leave school at age 14 and find employment. Such instances are exceedingly rare in developed countries with social safety nets, but they're not as uncommon in poorer countries. In those places, a parent must sometimes choose between their child going hungry or their child going to work. It's a terrible choice, but we should let families make that decision. The state doesn't have as much information as the parents do, and parents care about their children far more than the state does. A blanket policy prevents families from choosing what they think is best. Second: As we've seen with laws banning drugs and prostitution, the net effect is to drive the practice underground. This means that anyone involved can't rely on the police and courts. It encourages violence and discourages victims from reporting worse crimes for fear of being prosecuted themselves. It means that banned products aren't subject to controls on quality or safety (as they would be if they were regulated like everything else). So too with child labor. In poor countries, child labor laws mean that children work illegally. They have no protection from hazardous working conditions or abusive practices. The fact that their labor is illegal also means they can't join a union. Third: In the US, there are exemptions to child labor laws. The Amish are allowed to leave school and work full-time at 14. They work on farms. They use power tools[1]. Some even work in woodshops and sawmills (though usually less hazardous jobs such as cashier or stacking wood). As young as 10 years old, they drive horse-drawn buggies on public roads. Compared to other children in the US, Amish kids don't seem to be particularly unhappy or have worse life outcomes overall. I think people should have more rights sooner in life. That includes the right to vote, the right to leave school, and yes the right to exchange labor for money. There are plenty of successful people who left school early. Heck, the former Prime Minister of Australia quit school at 14.[2] Scroll through Wikipedia's list of autodidacts[3] and you'll find quite a few high school dropouts. One can criticize a practice while still arguing against blunt laws that outright ban it. I'm certainly not a fan of child labor, but I think that many of the laws around it are counterproductive, especially in developing countries. I also think many drugs are dangerous, but imprisoning people who engage in such practices causes more harm than allowing it. And I'm worried about how governments and large companies are collecting information, but I'm also convinced that GDPR doesn't help. If anything, it makes the problem worse because larger companies can more easily afford to comply. And there's the issue with GDPR's exceptions for government agencies such as law enforcement and intelligence. Funny how that works. 1. The Amish use compressed air or hydraulic tools. Some sects allow electricity if it's from self-sufficent sources. For more info, see https://www.tested.com/tech/453794-how-amish-are-adopting-power-tools-and-electricity-bit-bit/ https://www.tested.com/tech/453794-how-amish-are-adopting-po... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts

Aunche 6y ago

The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant. If the merchant is offering me content for the exchange of information, why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? It's already legal to "force" your customers to exchange money for content. If anything, it's even worse because a lot of children end up malnourished because their parents spent to much money on entertainment.

smichel17 6y ago
> The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant This is a fair counterpoint; it is not a perfect comparison. I think it did its job though, to clarify (now with your help) the actual point of contention: > why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? Most nations have a concept of human/inalienable/natural rights, which cannot be signed away. For example, it's usually illegal to sell yourself into slavery. In the GDPR's view, privacy is such a right. Do you think the government should not be able to stop these transactions at all, or do you think privacy should not fall into that category? Or a different objection I haven't thought of. --- I have my own views, but I'm not really interested in arguing them. It largely comes down to what moral system you subscribe to, which I think is a waste of time to discuss on HN (or any public forum) -- there's too many people on the internet to argue with everyone you disagree with; better to learn to get along, and focus advocacy on communities closer to home. As for why I comment at all: figuring out how to frame issues is not a waste of time — it's much easier (less emotional) and provides a useful reference for future conversation.
- Aunche 6y ago
  I appreciate your response, and I think my view is broadened as well :) > do you think privacy should not fall into that category? This one. Supermarket rewards are an example exchanging privacy for money that is rather uncontroversial. Obviously tech companies collect a lot more information, but I believe the same principle applies.

bonoboTP 6y ago

The major difference is that the child labor affects someone else negatively, while tracking affects the consumer themselves.

smichel17 6y ago
Fair. See my cousin reply to Aunche for slightly more detail.

ggreer 6y ago

I'll bite that bullet and argue that child labor laws, like GDPR, are well-intentioned but cause more harm than they prevent. Let me explain. First: If child labor laws were abolished tomorrow, almost no parent in a developed country would encourage their children work, and almost no employer would accept child labor. Parents want their children to succeed in life, and in developed countries that means sending them to school until they have enough knowledge to work a lucrative job. So a parent must be desperate for money or have a very low opinion of formal schooling if they're willing to let their child leave school at age 14 and find employment. Such instances are exceedingly rare in developed countries with social safety nets, but they're not as uncommon in poorer countries. In those places, a parent must sometimes choose between their child going hungry or their child going to work. It's a terrible choice, but we should let families make that decision. The state doesn't have as much information as the parents do, and parents care about their children far more than the state does. A blanket policy prevents families from choosing what they think is best. Second: As we've seen with laws banning drugs and prostitution, the net effect is to drive the practice underground. This means that anyone involved can't rely on the police and courts. It encourages violence and discourages victims from reporting worse crimes for fear of being prosecuted themselves. It means that banned products aren't subject to controls on quality or safety (as they would be if they were regulated like everything else). So too with child labor. In poor countries, child labor laws mean that children work illegally. They have no protection from hazardous working conditions or abusive practices. The fact that their labor is illegal also means they can't join a union. Third: In the US, there are exemptions to child labor laws. The Amish are allowed to leave school and work full-time at 14. They work on farms. They use power tools[1]. Some even work in woodshops and sawmills (though usually less hazardous jobs such as cashier or stacking wood). As young as 10 years old, they drive horse-drawn buggies on public roads. Compared to other children in the US, Amish kids don't seem to be particularly unhappy or have worse life outcomes overall. I think people should have more rights sooner in life. That includes the right to vote, the right to leave school, and yes the right to exchange labor for money. There are plenty of successful people who left school early. Heck, the former Prime Minister of Australia quit school at 14.[2] Scroll through Wikipedia's list of autodidacts[3] and you'll find quite a few high school dropouts. One can criticize a practice while still arguing against blunt laws that outright ban it. I'm certainly not a fan of child labor, but I think that many of the laws around it are counterproductive, especially in developing countries. I also think many drugs are dangerous, but imprisoning people who engage in such practices causes more harm than allowing it. And I'm worried about how governments and large companies are collecting information, but I'm also convinced that GDPR doesn't help. If anything, it makes the problem worse because larger companies can more easily afford to comply. And there's the issue with GDPR's exceptions for government agencies such as law enforcement and intelligence. Funny how that works. 1. The Amish use compressed air or hydraulic tools. Some sects allow electricity if it's from self-sufficent sources. For more info, see https://www.tested.com/tech/453794-how-amish-are-adopting-power-tools-and-electricity-bit-bit/ https://www.tested.com/tech/453794-how-amish-are-adopting-po... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts