4 ms·

This isn't like a brand of beer or car that you don't like going under. Facebook has deep effects on all of us, even if we never use it. They don't wait for y

This isn't like a brand of beer or car that you don't like going under. Facebook has deep effects on all of us, even if we never use it. They don't wait for you to create an account to start gathering data about you.

amadeuspagel 6y ago
> This isn't like a brand of beer or car that you don't like going under. Facebook has deep effects on all of us, even if we never use it. Good point, but that's true for many things. Including beer[1] and cars[2], come to think of it. We live in a society, and anything that our fellow humans do has effects on us. I'm not saying that just because lots of people drink beer, drive cars and use facebook, these things can't be critized, but it still seems arrogant to cheer for the destruction of something so many people use. > They don't wait for you to create an account to start gathering data about you. I don't really have an answer to this other then saying that I don't see the problem with it. We are all gathering data about each other all the time. And there's a lot of software that does this at scale, like a search engine. [1] Prohibition was mainly justified with the problems alcoholics caused for others, not their own suffering. [2] Probably the first example of a radical monopoly, lots of concern about crime and a breakdown of trust.
- the_hoser 6y ago
  You're using whataboutism on a colossal scale to argue against the attack on a single bad actor. It's not possible to address all bad actors simultaneously. Some bad actors will be sorted out quicker than others. The order in which they get sorted out is not intended to be fair.
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    I'm not using whataboutism, not on "a colossal scale", not on any scale. Whataboutism is to evade the question whether there's something wrong by pointing to other things. I've said quite clearly that I don't see anything wrong with gathering data on non-users. Individuals and corporations gather data on people they have no direct relationship with all the time. It's not whataboutism to point out that something is completely ordinary.
    - the_hoser 6y ago
      Fair enough. But I'd also like to point out that just because something is normal, doesn't make it right. If you think that it's okay for corporations to collect information on non-users in the way that Facebook does, then I can only say that I strongly disagree with you.
    - philipov 6y ago
      > I've said quite clearly that I don't see anything wrong with gathering data on non-users. And I don't see anything wrong with wanting to destroy massive international conglomerates that see nothing wrong with bullying regulators into letting them do whatever they want.

amadeuspagel 6y ago

> This isn't like a brand of beer or car that you don't like going under. Facebook has deep effects on all of us, even if we never use it. Good point, but that's true for many things. Including beer[1] and cars[2], come to think of it. We live in a society, and anything that our fellow humans do has effects on us. I'm not saying that just because lots of people drink beer, drive cars and use facebook, these things can't be critized, but it still seems arrogant to cheer for the destruction of something so many people use. > They don't wait for you to create an account to start gathering data about you. I don't really have an answer to this other then saying that I don't see the problem with it. We are all gathering data about each other all the time. And there's a lot of software that does this at scale, like a search engine. [1] Prohibition was mainly justified with the problems alcoholics caused for others, not their own suffering. [2] Probably the first example of a radical monopoly, lots of concern about crime and a breakdown of trust.

the_hoser 6y ago
You're using whataboutism on a colossal scale to argue against the attack on a single bad actor. It's not possible to address all bad actors simultaneously. Some bad actors will be sorted out quicker than others. The order in which they get sorted out is not intended to be fair.
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  I'm not using whataboutism, not on "a colossal scale", not on any scale. Whataboutism is to evade the question whether there's something wrong by pointing to other things. I've said quite clearly that I don't see anything wrong with gathering data on non-users. Individuals and corporations gather data on people they have no direct relationship with all the time. It's not whataboutism to point out that something is completely ordinary.
  - the_hoser 6y ago
    Fair enough. But I'd also like to point out that just because something is normal, doesn't make it right. If you think that it's okay for corporations to collect information on non-users in the way that Facebook does, then I can only say that I strongly disagree with you.
  - philipov 6y ago
    > I've said quite clearly that I don't see anything wrong with gathering data on non-users. And I don't see anything wrong with wanting to destroy massive international conglomerates that see nothing wrong with bullying regulators into letting them do whatever they want.