4 ms·
> There's only one thing that destroys privacy even more thoroughly than ad targeting: payment. I disagree with this. Maybe you can elaborate? If I am paying
by gpanders 6y ago
> There's only one thing that destroys privacy even more thoroughly than ad targeting: payment.
I disagree with this. Maybe you can elaborate?
If I am paying for a service then there is no incentive to mine my personal data for revenue. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. And there are plenty of ways to hide your personal information (even your name) when paying for something (e.g. using a service like privacy.com).
- derivagral 6y agoMy understanding is that the mentality is "they paid us, we have their data, we're keeping it for future leads, we could get a new line of revenue by turning that into a product."
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y agoI assume the meaning is that if you pay a site, they know exactly who you are; not just a cookie ID, but an actual credit card transaction with a real name attached.
- fauigerzigerk 6y agoI don't know much about privacy.com because it's not available outside the US. Knowing a bit about the legal side of payments I doubt they can promise anonymity though. They're just not passing my identity on to merchants as I understand it. I doubt that there will ever be a widespread, convenient way to make anonymous electronic payments. The authorities would never allow that to happen (for understandable reasons I have to say). Incentives are not working at all. Lots of services I pay for go to great lengths to squeeze even more out of that customer relationship. And how could I possibly trust a large number of small companies I know very little about?
- ivanche 6y agoIf you pay for a service there's every incentive to mine your data - you proved you have the money by paying for a service, thus your data is much more valuable comparing to Joe Schmuck who doesn't pay.