2 ms·

I didn't say that people want them, merely that they are choosing to participate in the system. People being sex-trafficked are not, which is why it's an apples

I didn't say that people want them, merely that they are choosing to participate in the system. People being sex-trafficked are not, which is why it's an apples-to-orangutans comparison.

prepend 6y ago
While the magnitude is different I think the relationships are similar. I don’t choose to have my data included for targeted. Victims don’t choose to be trafficked. Marketers choose to buy ads using the data. Perverts choose to buy sex from victims. Each has people choosing to use, and not choosing to be victims. Both have an intermediary selling the ads or the humans.
- fastball 6y ago
  You are choosing to have you data included for targeting. That is what you are agreeing to when you agree to the ToS. There is no "victim" here, because you have agency.
  - prepend 6y ago
    I don’t think so. Aside from frequently being included into Google’s data by sites that use GoogleAnalytics without ever asking me anything, these TOS click throughs aren’t honest agreements as they are long and confusing and change over time. Even if I never log in and go to Google.com without an account they are using data on me and I never clicked anything. I don’t have agency to avoid Google collecting data on me unless I stop using the internet. Perhaps if I always use TOR or something. And that’s me who works in this area day in and day out. “Average users” definitely don’t have agency and can’t be expected to give informed consent to these data collections. In medical research before informed consent [0] was law, experiments would have “click through TOS” that patients would accept without understanding, often with some token offering. I don’t think it’s accurate or fair to say that random users clicking through agreements in exchange for free services have agency. [0] https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/informed-consent https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/informed-con...

I didn't say that people want them, merely that they are choosing to participate in the system. People being sex-trafficked are not, which is why it's an apples-to-orangutans comparison.

prepend 6y ago

While the magnitude is different I think the relationships are similar. I don’t choose to have my data included for targeted. Victims don’t choose to be trafficked. Marketers choose to buy ads using the data. Perverts choose to buy sex from victims. Each has people choosing to use, and not choosing to be victims. Both have an intermediary selling the ads or the humans.

fastball 6y ago
You are choosing to have you data included for targeting. That is what you are agreeing to when you agree to the ToS. There is no "victim" here, because you have agency.
- prepend 6y ago
  I don’t think so. Aside from frequently being included into Google’s data by sites that use GoogleAnalytics without ever asking me anything, these TOS click throughs aren’t honest agreements as they are long and confusing and change over time. Even if I never log in and go to Google.com without an account they are using data on me and I never clicked anything. I don’t have agency to avoid Google collecting data on me unless I stop using the internet. Perhaps if I always use TOR or something. And that’s me who works in this area day in and day out. “Average users” definitely don’t have agency and can’t be expected to give informed consent to these data collections. In medical research before informed consent [0] was law, experiments would have “click through TOS” that patients would accept without understanding, often with some token offering. I don’t think it’s accurate or fair to say that random users clicking through agreements in exchange for free services have agency. [0] https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/informed-consent https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/informed-con...