3 ms·

> Defaults are powerful! No kidding! Just look at where we are with personal data. The default is opt-out - it should be opt-in. And for consent, the default i

> Defaults are powerful! No kidding! Just look at where we are with personal data. The default is opt-out - it should be opt-in. And for consent, the default is 'assumed' consent - it should be 'informed' consent.

oblio 6y ago
Yeah, as far as letters go, it's a 3 character difference. You know: "opt-in/out". So it seems easy. However switching that little switch would mean killing businesses worth tens of billions of dollars. We're talking about millions of people losing their jobs and their privileged positions. I'm not saying this because I agree with them, I'm just pointing out that threatening their livelihood will cause a vicious reaction. People have been killed for less. Wars have been started for less.
- staplers 6y ago
  We're talking about millions of people losing their jobs and their privileged positions. How did the world and society exist without big-brother surveillance?!?
  - oblio 6y ago
    Don't misread/misrepresent what I'm saying ;-) My point is that there are many of those people I mention, they're rich, smart and quite powerful. Many of them are on this exact site, by the way. They're not going to give up what they got without a fight.
    - staplers 6y ago
      Sounds like I'm interpreting it perfectly. You are implying surveillance capitalism is necessary because "certain people" can threaten, harass, maybe kill citizens into participating because it makes "certain people" rich. My sarcasm implies it's unnecessary. Further it is a net-negative to society and everyone knows it. Look at tobacco, oil, or coal.. eventually they lose their grip. Get real.
      - oblio 6y ago
        I'm not saying its necessary or otherwise. I'm saying that it's here and getting rid of it will not be easy. Another example you might be familiar with if you're American, the US healthcare system, especially the private insurance system. How is getting rid of it going? :-)
- ghaff 6y ago
  And it's not just personal data. Imagine if organizations were only allowed to index or archive web sites if the copyright holder has explicitly opted in using robots.txt or something similar. A huge part of the functioning of the Internet is enabled by practices you need to explicitly opt out of--if you can opt out at all.
- titanomachy 6y ago
  It's incredible when you consider what it would be worth to these companies to influence the decision one way or the other. If Facebook calculated that it would cost $14 billion to convince the government/people to stop Apple from changing this default, it would probably be worth it: Facebook's revenue is about $70 billion per year, and about half is from advertising in the US. For reference, $14 billion is the total amount spent campaigning for both the congressional and presidential campaigns in the US 2020 election. Uber was able to buy their California ballot proposition for a mere $300 million in marketing costs.

oblio 6y ago

Yeah, as far as letters go, it's a 3 character difference. You know: "opt-in/out". So it seems easy. However switching that little switch would mean killing businesses worth tens of billions of dollars. We're talking about millions of people losing their jobs and their privileged positions. I'm not saying this because I agree with them, I'm just pointing out that threatening their livelihood will cause a vicious reaction. People have been killed for less. Wars have been started for less.

staplers 6y ago
We're talking about millions of people losing their jobs and their privileged positions. How did the world and society exist without big-brother surveillance?!?
- oblio 6y ago
  Don't misread/misrepresent what I'm saying ;-) My point is that there are many of those people I mention, they're rich, smart and quite powerful. Many of them are on this exact site, by the way. They're not going to give up what they got without a fight.
  - staplers 6y ago
    Sounds like I'm interpreting it perfectly. You are implying surveillance capitalism is necessary because "certain people" can threaten, harass, maybe kill citizens into participating because it makes "certain people" rich. My sarcasm implies it's unnecessary. Further it is a net-negative to society and everyone knows it. Look at tobacco, oil, or coal.. eventually they lose their grip. Get real.
    - oblio 6y ago
      I'm not saying its necessary or otherwise. I'm saying that it's here and getting rid of it will not be easy. Another example you might be familiar with if you're American, the US healthcare system, especially the private insurance system. How is getting rid of it going? :-)
ghaff 6y ago
And it's not just personal data. Imagine if organizations were only allowed to index or archive web sites if the copyright holder has explicitly opted in using robots.txt or something similar. A huge part of the functioning of the Internet is enabled by practices you need to explicitly opt out of--if you can opt out at all.
titanomachy 6y ago
It's incredible when you consider what it would be worth to these companies to influence the decision one way or the other. If Facebook calculated that it would cost $14 billion to convince the government/people to stop Apple from changing this default, it would probably be worth it: Facebook's revenue is about $70 billion per year, and about half is from advertising in the US. For reference, $14 billion is the total amount spent campaigning for both the congressional and presidential campaigns in the US 2020 election. Uber was able to buy their California ballot proposition for a mere $300 million in marketing costs.