4 ms·

> It's not clear to me that they shouldn't be faulted. How many people read terms and conditions? How many people lack the technological literacy to understand

> It's not clear to me that they shouldn't be faulted. How many people read terms and conditions? How many people lack the technological literacy to understand what it means to share their facebook data with third-parties? I'm not trying to argue here, but I see this argument pop up often when discussing big tech and user data. I'm curious why the tone is so different when it comes to mortgages or auto loans, for example. It seems society is content with the notion that I must do my ow due diligence when buying a home, but for whatever reason that responsibility seems to slide away when I'm dealing with social media. Why is that? To clarify, I'm being sincere, not argumentative. I'm not a normal internet user and never have been. I haven't been on social media for a decade, use all the ad blockers, and so on.

manux 6y ago
[Not an expert on this, just my opinion as well] Well, for one afaik mortgages and auto loans are regulated and have been for a long time. They're also simpler to understand for _most_ people, since most people interact with money daily, they see their income, they understand interest, etc. Most people don't need to understand how banks trade mortgages and such because in all likelihood, well except in 2008, it will only affect them marginally. I suspect that most people similarly only have a very superficial functional understanding of data. They see other people's data daily, they understand that if they post something, other people will see it. Where this differs is that, at scale data is not well regulated, and can affect users much more directly and non-marginally, in non-obvious ways. Targeted ads, political manipulation, identity theft, etc.
BlackFly 6y ago
Well for one, I expect the bank not to have snuck in a clause that allows them to unilaterally change the contract without providing me with a physical copy thereof. I expect that if the bank tried that that the courts would rule it unconscionable. I expect that if I modify terms in the contract such as typos that the representative will ok them and accept the modification. I expect that they will keep a physical copy of the license or a digital scan thereof so they can track which version I received and whether such modifications were made and to keep track of the witness. I expect the bank to insist on having a translator present since I reside in a land where my proficiency in the language is suspect. I expect that there is a meaningful exchange embodied by the contract and that there is some sense in which I can seek redress if the bank fails to provide the agreed upon funds. If you are sincere, you should compare more people trying to make payday loans illegal with the fight against Facebook's EULA. Banks have always showed much more diligence to receive meaningful consent for a mortgage than Facebook even comes close to. With Payday loans, a predatory lender is trying to rope someone into a contract and then wants to use the courts to extract much more money out of individuals knowing that the individual may be so far in debt that they have no more disposable income. There are many people who would argue that such things should be illegal (or already are) in the same grain as loansharking. Once upon a time people signed contracts whereupon they became slaves or indentured. Clearly not all contractual terms should be honored by a just society. Facebook is seen by some as closer to the predatory lender than a typical mortgage provider. People are free to disagree with where to place the line, but clearly society places the line somewhere on the acceptability of contractual terms.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dfxm12 6y ago
It seems society is content with the notion that I must do my ow due diligence when buying a home, but for whatever reason that responsibility seems to slide away when I'm dealing with social media. Why is that? Counterpoint: I'm not content with opaque mortgage or auto loan terms (although my last auto loan was actually quite simple). I don't think you can generalize how "society" feels in this way. This also happens to be a recent hot button issue. If you talked to someone in, oh say, late 2008, mortgages might've been on the front of their mind.
mancerayder 6y ago
> I'm not trying to argue here, but I see this argument pop up often when discussing big tech and user data. I'm curious why the tone is so different when it comes to mortgages or auto loans, for example. It seems society is content with the notion that I must do my ow due diligence when buying a home, but for whatever reason that responsibility seems to slide away when I'm dealing with social media. Why is that? That's a legitimate and good question. And the answer is that the mortgage industry is highly regulated, and so there are things that the federal government demands (if we're talking about the U.S.) and additionally that states demand. So if you sign a mortgage paperwork in my state, for example, there are Riders that have to be provided. Same with signing up for a credit card. One page information sheets MANDATED by the government that the consumer gets to see, before having to sign contracts. You don't need to be a lawyer to not get screwed. Another good example. Residential leases are long, technical contracts. However, the state law overrides what's in it. So even if someone signs something that violates their rights, it won't apply. In some cases, the landlord can be sued for damages. Additionally, Riders are often mandated by the state that the landlord should provide, that summarizes rights. The problem is that individual user data privacy is NOT regulated. The lack of regulations and laws are why we're all arguing right now.

manux 6y ago

[Not an expert on this, just my opinion as well] Well, for one afaik mortgages and auto loans are regulated and have been for a long time. They're also simpler to understand for _most_ people, since most people interact with money daily, they see their income, they understand interest, etc. Most people don't need to understand how banks trade mortgages and such because in all likelihood, well except in 2008, it will only affect them marginally. I suspect that most people similarly only have a very superficial functional understanding of data. They see other people's data daily, they understand that if they post something, other people will see it. Where this differs is that, at scale data is not well regulated, and can affect users much more directly and non-marginally, in non-obvious ways. Targeted ads, political manipulation, identity theft, etc.

BlackFly 6y ago

Well for one, I expect the bank not to have snuck in a clause that allows them to unilaterally change the contract without providing me with a physical copy thereof. I expect that if the bank tried that that the courts would rule it unconscionable. I expect that if I modify terms in the contract such as typos that the representative will ok them and accept the modification. I expect that they will keep a physical copy of the license or a digital scan thereof so they can track which version I received and whether such modifications were made and to keep track of the witness. I expect the bank to insist on having a translator present since I reside in a land where my proficiency in the language is suspect. I expect that there is a meaningful exchange embodied by the contract and that there is some sense in which I can seek redress if the bank fails to provide the agreed upon funds. If you are sincere, you should compare more people trying to make payday loans illegal with the fight against Facebook's EULA. Banks have always showed much more diligence to receive meaningful consent for a mortgage than Facebook even comes close to. With Payday loans, a predatory lender is trying to rope someone into a contract and then wants to use the courts to extract much more money out of individuals knowing that the individual may be so far in debt that they have no more disposable income. There are many people who would argue that such things should be illegal (or already are) in the same grain as loansharking. Once upon a time people signed contracts whereupon they became slaves or indentured. Clearly not all contractual terms should be honored by a just society. Facebook is seen by some as closer to the predatory lender than a typical mortgage provider. People are free to disagree with where to place the line, but clearly society places the line somewhere on the acceptability of contractual terms.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dfxm12 6y ago

It seems society is content with the notion that I must do my ow due diligence when buying a home, but for whatever reason that responsibility seems to slide away when I'm dealing with social media. Why is that? Counterpoint: I'm not content with opaque mortgage or auto loan terms (although my last auto loan was actually quite simple). I don't think you can generalize how "society" feels in this way. This also happens to be a recent hot button issue. If you talked to someone in, oh say, late 2008, mortgages might've been on the front of their mind.

mancerayder 6y ago

> I'm not trying to argue here, but I see this argument pop up often when discussing big tech and user data. I'm curious why the tone is so different when it comes to mortgages or auto loans, for example. It seems society is content with the notion that I must do my ow due diligence when buying a home, but for whatever reason that responsibility seems to slide away when I'm dealing with social media. Why is that? That's a legitimate and good question. And the answer is that the mortgage industry is highly regulated, and so there are things that the federal government demands (if we're talking about the U.S.) and additionally that states demand. So if you sign a mortgage paperwork in my state, for example, there are Riders that have to be provided. Same with signing up for a credit card. One page information sheets MANDATED by the government that the consumer gets to see, before having to sign contracts. You don't need to be a lawyer to not get screwed. Another good example. Residential leases are long, technical contracts. However, the state law overrides what's in it. So even if someone signs something that violates their rights, it won't apply. In some cases, the landlord can be sued for damages. Additionally, Riders are often mandated by the state that the landlord should provide, that summarizes rights. The problem is that individual user data privacy is NOT regulated. The lack of regulations and laws are why we're all arguing right now.