4 ms·

I can assure you I'm not wealthy and never have been, other than in the sense of me living in the west (though not the US). My point is that life can be pretty

I can assure you I'm not wealthy and never have been, other than in the sense of me living in the west (though not the US). My point is that life can be pretty damn decent without digital markers for where you are, constant air travel and a new TV every other year. Yes, certain things have gotten more affordable. But is affordable noise cancelling headphones and cheap air travel really the result of apps and websites crawling up our backsides with a microscope and shuffling that data to some unknown other? Air travel in the 1990s was much cheaper than, say, in the 1950s, much like computers, TV:s and headphones. In fact, the price of air travel dropped by roughly 1/3 between 1980 and 1995[0]. Evidence suggests that happened completely without constant digital surveillance. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airline-ticket-prices-fell-50-in-30-years-and-why-nobody-noticed/273506/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-air...

renewiltord 6y ago
Yeah, that's the funny thing. Since you're in the West, you're automatically so wealthy that you're practically the "How much could a banana cost, Michael? Ten dollars?" character. It so permeates your worldview that you do not think about the wealth. It's not uncommon or worthy of reproof. Class self-identification tends downward a little bit from reality. At worst, it just means you're a normal person. Today, you can buy a $200 55" TV. That is truly amazing. That took data selling as one part of the metrics. I'm not saying it's the sole cause, because I don't believe that. But it drives down the price, just as it does for everything else in a competitive market.
- arexxbifs 6y ago
  > Assuming things about me Off to a great start there, champ. > Huge TV Just like with air travel, TV:s have gotten larger and cheaper for a long, long time before data harvesting even existed as a factor. Yes, the price of TV:s are continuing to drop. Mostly because of cheaper panels. Of course manufacturers claim that TV:s would be unsellably expensive without telemetry, but then again, they make lots of money off it and "cheap" is a neat way to justify that. Current prices might've taken a bit longer to reach without telemetry - although the latest most significant price drops occurred a decade ago or more, well before spy TV:s were baseline models. Today, you can buy a 32" monitor for $200, and they've not yet begun spying on us. For pure screen real estate, yes, it costs more than a 55" model. But is it "expensive"? Heck, would it be "expensive" if it was a 28" CRT, like the one my current LCD TV replaced a decade ago? Sacrificing privacy for constant upgrades to something bigger and ostensibly better is, to reply in kind, if anything a kind of wealth blindness: What could possibly go wrong to anyone who owns a 55 inch TV?
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Dude, it's observation, not assumption. You know you're incredibly wealthy. Go on. Pull the other one. Yes, dude, $200 is expensive. See, don't have to assume anything about you. You wear it on your sleeve. "Is it really expensive? It's only $200" Being able to spend privacy for upgrades is freedom.

renewiltord 6y ago

Yeah, that's the funny thing. Since you're in the West, you're automatically so wealthy that you're practically the "How much could a banana cost, Michael? Ten dollars?" character. It so permeates your worldview that you do not think about the wealth. It's not uncommon or worthy of reproof. Class self-identification tends downward a little bit from reality. At worst, it just means you're a normal person. Today, you can buy a $200 55" TV. That is truly amazing. That took data selling as one part of the metrics. I'm not saying it's the sole cause, because I don't believe that. But it drives down the price, just as it does for everything else in a competitive market.

arexxbifs 6y ago
> Assuming things about me Off to a great start there, champ. > Huge TV Just like with air travel, TV:s have gotten larger and cheaper for a long, long time before data harvesting even existed as a factor. Yes, the price of TV:s are continuing to drop. Mostly because of cheaper panels. Of course manufacturers claim that TV:s would be unsellably expensive without telemetry, but then again, they make lots of money off it and "cheap" is a neat way to justify that. Current prices might've taken a bit longer to reach without telemetry - although the latest most significant price drops occurred a decade ago or more, well before spy TV:s were baseline models. Today, you can buy a 32" monitor for $200, and they've not yet begun spying on us. For pure screen real estate, yes, it costs more than a 55" model. But is it "expensive"? Heck, would it be "expensive" if it was a 28" CRT, like the one my current LCD TV replaced a decade ago? Sacrificing privacy for constant upgrades to something bigger and ostensibly better is, to reply in kind, if anything a kind of wealth blindness: What could possibly go wrong to anyone who owns a 55 inch TV?
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Dude, it's observation, not assumption. You know you're incredibly wealthy. Go on. Pull the other one. Yes, dude, $200 is expensive. See, don't have to assume anything about you. You wear it on your sleeve. "Is it really expensive? It's only $200" Being able to spend privacy for upgrades is freedom.