3 ms·

I don't know why you are bringing Facebook into this. Its business model is completely different, afaik it doesn't offer paid subscription to opt out of all tra

by Hitton 6y ago

I don't know why you are bringing Facebook into this. Its business model is completely different, afaik it doesn't offer paid subscription to opt out of all tracking. This is known as straw man fallacy - misrepresenting someone's position and then rebut that. What you are suggesting is not like "women should be allowed to vote" it's akin to "women must vote".

virgilp 6y ago
What does the business model have to do with everything? I was merely replying to this: > sharing users' personal data, something that influences only them It does not influence only them, and I gave you an example. Also, I don't care what's FB's business model, I advocate that nobody should have an automatic right to build user profiles. I explicitly advocate that you should not have the right to demand payment in "data" because privacy should not be considered currency. Is that a strawman? I thought that was your entire argument "people should be free to decide to pay with their data!". NO THEY SHOULD NOT. Data is not currency, just like votes are not currency. You ask for currency, if you need payment - you don't ask for profile data. > it's akin to "women must vote". Well, it's an analogy, if you don't find it useful, let's drop it. The gist of it is, I feel very strongly that we should legislate that privacy is not currency, you seem to feel otherwise. It is fine to disagree, but it doesn't make my position irrational or absurd in any way. Yes, I feel that allowing people to pay with privacy _is_ exactly "taking their rights away", in the same way that allowing them to pay with their voting rights would be.
- Hitton 6y ago
  I didn't expect having to qualify everything I say to the context of a discussion and topic on hand. I don't agree on your definition of personal data. Phone numbers and email addresses of my contacts are personal information that don't belong to me, I have merely unwritten consent to use them (but not to give them to every spammer). But none of that seemed to be relevant to the Grindr fine. And one thing I should have probably mentioned before - I don't know Grindr and how the subscription works there, but my opinion on paying(subscription) vs giving data away would also depend if there were additional features granted in the subscription (now thinking about it probably yes) or not. This would in my opinion qualify as forcing user into paying even for thing he might not necessarily want to just to protect own privacy.

by Hitton 6y ago

virgilp 6y ago

What does the business model have to do with everything? I was merely replying to this: > sharing users' personal data, something that influences only them It does not influence only them, and I gave you an example. Also, I don't care what's FB's business model, I advocate that nobody should have an automatic right to build user profiles. I explicitly advocate that you should not have the right to demand payment in "data" because privacy should not be considered currency. Is that a strawman? I thought that was your entire argument "people should be free to decide to pay with their data!". NO THEY SHOULD NOT. Data is not currency, just like votes are not currency. You ask for currency, if you need payment - you don't ask for profile data. > it's akin to "women must vote". Well, it's an analogy, if you don't find it useful, let's drop it. The gist of it is, I feel very strongly that we should legislate that privacy is not currency, you seem to feel otherwise. It is fine to disagree, but it doesn't make my position irrational or absurd in any way. Yes, I feel that allowing people to pay with privacy _is_ exactly "taking their rights away", in the same way that allowing them to pay with their voting rights would be.

Hitton 6y ago
I didn't expect having to qualify everything I say to the context of a discussion and topic on hand. I don't agree on your definition of personal data. Phone numbers and email addresses of my contacts are personal information that don't belong to me, I have merely unwritten consent to use them (but not to give them to every spammer). But none of that seemed to be relevant to the Grindr fine. And one thing I should have probably mentioned before - I don't know Grindr and how the subscription works there, but my opinion on paying(subscription) vs giving data away would also depend if there were additional features granted in the subscription (now thinking about it probably yes) or not. This would in my opinion qualify as forcing user into paying even for thing he might not necessarily want to just to protect own privacy.