4 ms·

Everything you say there underlines and reinfoces the point that the percentage of customers who know precisely what they are paying is so close to zero as make

by harry8 6y ago

Everything you say there underlines and reinfoces the point that the percentage of customers who know precisely what they are paying is so close to zero as makes no difference. That's a problem for a market.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Another read of the situation is that the transaction does not cost these folks anything they value. You may want them to value it (whatever you think "it" is, I'm not sure) but they don't.
- rrobukef 6y ago
  For me, I cannot put a value to the transaction. I have done enough searches that can embarrass me, label me, or hurt me. Maybe some were illegal; I probably am on a lot of lists. Political searches are enough to alienate a lot of people. How do you estimate how my searches affect my income for the coming years? Privacy and ads are an unequal marketplace where the consumer lacks information. And looking at VPN incidents, perhaps it is fundamentally unequal. A consumer can never verify if information freely given is stored or abused.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    > For me, I cannot put a value to the transaction. I have done enough searches that can embarrass me, label me, or hurt me. Maybe some were illegal; I probably am on a lot of lists. Political searches are enough to alienate a lot of people. How do you estimate how my searches affect my income for the coming years? Probably zero, because absent a search warrant they aren't ever revealed to anyone but you.
    - etripe 6y ago
      > Probably zero, because absent a search warrant they aren't ever revealed to anyone but you. Are you unaware of parallel construction or do you think it poses no real danger?
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        I think it poses minimal danger to the vast, vast majority of people. For people who are doing crime, though, probably it's best not to use search while logged in or from their own IP.
    - rrobukef 6y ago
      The first value is definetly not zero, enough companties profit from selling ads. The second, I'd like to remind you of the Target pregnancy story (possible hoax) or, more real, the Ashley Madison leaks.
- harry8 6y ago
  >the transaction does not cost these folks anything they value. Absolutely and you can say that about literally everyone who gets caught by a confidence trickster and some do. It really hasn't worked out for too many indigenous cultures where that was used as the precise justfication, for example. Usuary is another one you can defend that way and people do. It's not so commonly held anymore by those not profiting from it. When there is a tradeoff between what is good fo soceity at large being the people who live in it and what is good for for a big company's market dominance the latter is meant to come absolutely last and be tolerated if it doesn't infringe anything much else of value to the people. I can't see that as being the case here. No doubt Zuckerberg disagrees because he's convinced anything good for him and his company is pefection for society by the definition that he wants to do it. Nobody understands what they are paying. Nobody understands their liability. Google et al all desperately hide it and have done a bait and switch to make it happen. There is _NO_ informed consent to the contract and the contract is invalid.
  - tangjurine 6y ago
    Well said
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    >Absolutely and you can say that about literally everyone who gets caught by a confidence trickster and some do. No, you cannot. Because with a confidence trickster there is usually an element of regret afterwards. The folks we are talking about have generally been using Google for years and years. If the other shoe is going to drop it's sure taking its time.

by harry8 6y ago

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

Another read of the situation is that the transaction does not cost these folks anything they value. You may want them to value it (whatever you think "it" is, I'm not sure) but they don't.

rrobukef 6y ago
For me, I cannot put a value to the transaction. I have done enough searches that can embarrass me, label me, or hurt me. Maybe some were illegal; I probably am on a lot of lists. Political searches are enough to alienate a lot of people. How do you estimate how my searches affect my income for the coming years? Privacy and ads are an unequal marketplace where the consumer lacks information. And looking at VPN incidents, perhaps it is fundamentally unequal. A consumer can never verify if information freely given is stored or abused.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > For me, I cannot put a value to the transaction. I have done enough searches that can embarrass me, label me, or hurt me. Maybe some were illegal; I probably am on a lot of lists. Political searches are enough to alienate a lot of people. How do you estimate how my searches affect my income for the coming years? Probably zero, because absent a search warrant they aren't ever revealed to anyone but you.
  - etripe 6y ago
    > Probably zero, because absent a search warrant they aren't ever revealed to anyone but you. Are you unaware of parallel construction or do you think it poses no real danger?
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      I think it poses minimal danger to the vast, vast majority of people. For people who are doing crime, though, probably it's best not to use search while logged in or from their own IP.
  - rrobukef 6y ago
    The first value is definetly not zero, enough companties profit from selling ads. The second, I'd like to remind you of the Target pregnancy story (possible hoax) or, more real, the Ashley Madison leaks.
harry8 6y ago
>the transaction does not cost these folks anything they value. Absolutely and you can say that about literally everyone who gets caught by a confidence trickster and some do. It really hasn't worked out for too many indigenous cultures where that was used as the precise justfication, for example. Usuary is another one you can defend that way and people do. It's not so commonly held anymore by those not profiting from it. When there is a tradeoff between what is good fo soceity at large being the people who live in it and what is good for for a big company's market dominance the latter is meant to come absolutely last and be tolerated if it doesn't infringe anything much else of value to the people. I can't see that as being the case here. No doubt Zuckerberg disagrees because he's convinced anything good for him and his company is pefection for society by the definition that he wants to do it. Nobody understands what they are paying. Nobody understands their liability. Google et al all desperately hide it and have done a bait and switch to make it happen. There is _NO_ informed consent to the contract and the contract is invalid.
- tangjurine 6y ago
  Well said
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  >Absolutely and you can say that about literally everyone who gets caught by a confidence trickster and some do. No, you cannot. Because with a confidence trickster there is usually an element of regret afterwards. The folks we are talking about have generally been using Google for years and years. If the other shoe is going to drop it's sure taking its time.