12 ms·

What really frustrates me is I had already turned off all of the "personalized advertising" toggles I could find prior to this. But I log in to turn these off

What really frustrates me is I had already turned off all of the "personalized advertising" toggles I could find prior to this. But I log in to turn these off and the ones I'd touched before were back on. Increasingly, the "if you're not paying then you're the product" saying is bunk. I am paying, almost $400 per month, for quite a few SIMs to be active on T-Mobile's network yet that's not enough. They have to harvest data about me for even more. (Don't come at me with the "a company is legally required to take in all of the money it possibly can for its shareholders" bit. Nothing says a company can't make a reasonable business decision to leave money on the table.)

idatum 6y ago
I noticed the same thing: I opted out (both analytics and ads options) a few months ago when I switched to T-Mobile. They since ignored my preferences and opted me back in. Unbelievable. I don't even know when they did this. Do I now have to keep checking on these settings?? Changing privacy preferences without my knowledge or permission must be made illegal. Total FB like move. Also, I'm generally tired of this concept of "ads relevant to me" BS.
- SllX 6y ago
  Except Facebook had respected every single privacy toggle I ever set when I had my account. I looked this morning expecting to find an additional toggle and found several settings I thought were toggled off were toggled on. I was thinking this was an oversight on my part until I saw this thread, but now I’m not so sure.
  - luplex 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure Facebook is really careful around this stuff. it's illegal for them to ignore your previously made privacy choices. Facebook can't afford to break the law in such an obvious way.
    - SllX 6y ago
      No, I’m going to give them full kudos here, not the cynical “they have to be careful because reasons” type of kudos, but the full-bodied rich in flavor type of kudos. I created my account in 2007 and would regularly check the privacy settings every time they made a change of any kind up to the point I stopped using and later removed the account over a decade later. Not one privacy setting that I exerted manual control over ever changed out from under me. Whatever controversies they came under in that time with all the additional accompanying scrutiny, this aspect never changed. Perhaps there are counter examples out there, but that’s how it was for me.
      - cm2012 6y ago
        FB is more careful about privacy than 98% of companies their size.
        samb1729 6y ago
        Do there exist 50 companies their size for that number to make sense?
        luplex 6y ago
        I'd slightly modify that: FB is careful about privacy law, but its business model is about extracting private data.
        cm2012 6y ago
        One example: The NYTimes will sell your name + home address to other advertisers to send you mail. FB does not share your personal information with anyone, it just lets people serve ads to you on the platform based on it.
        scubazealous 6y ago
        They are careful about privacy when you are careful of your own. There are millions of users who do not change the default settings.
  - walkedaway 6y ago
    Maybe recently, but early last decade (2010-ish) they didn't. It's why I haven't had a Facebook account since then. After opting out of sharing my data, I would see my data (namely, my Facebook friends likes) pop up on third-party websites.
    - SllX 6y ago
      All of those asinine social widgets were loaded straight from Facebook.com, so it was less a case of sharing your info as it was if you were signed into Facebook, then those widgets would behave as if they were on Facebook and not a third party site. I also don’t recall if there were settings for those things, probably not because learning how else Facebook used those widgets to profile me was what prompted me to quarantine Facebook to Chrome, blacklist Facebook’s domains in NoScript and reduce then eliminate my usage.
- don-code 6y ago
  The answer seems to be "yes", for several reasons: 1) I also once changed my privacy preferences, but have since been opted back in. 2) I wouldn't have even known to check were it not for Hacker News, which is _not_ how I, nor hopefully anyone, would want to be notified of changes to my/their T-Mobile account. 3) I'm greeted with a generic "Update Operation Failed" when I try to opt any of the lines on my account back out, so now I have even less faith that my changes will stick.
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    Vote with your $$$. Get a new mobile network.
    - hyperbovine 6y ago
      Hard to do when "# of alternative networks" is tending asymptotically to zero.
      - jonplackett 6y ago
        It's weird/sad how the land of capitalism is trending towards the land of monopolism.
        marshmallow_12 6y ago
        that is what capitalisim is.
        skynet-9000 6y ago
        that's what socialism is (well, if they're govt controlled or effectively govt controlled). real capitalism encourages competition, and real entrepreneurs try to discourage it and gain an effective monopoly. that tension is part of the beauty of the whole thing, but when govt approves these mergers with government granted monopolies (i.e., the wireless spectrum), then it all goes to pot very fast.
- cbsks 6y ago
  Me three. I definitely have opted out of analytics and ad tracking before, but I just rechecked my settings in the T-Mobile app and both were enabled. What a slimey thing for them to do. Does anyone have any suggestions for a better cell carrier in the US?
  - harlanji 6y ago
    Yuck. I just switched to them from Verizon who I left for scummy business practice. On to the next carrier, AT&T.
    - ramphastidae 6y ago
      AT&T is the absolute worst of the three IMO. Poorest offering, highest cost.
      - skynet-9000 6y ago
        Their prepaid plan is only $25/mo w/ 8gb lte when prepaid the year in advance. That's wayyy cheaper than any of the other big players, and their network/coverage is supposed to be better than t-mobile (and almost as good as verizon).
        Gh0stRAT 6y ago
        >That's wayyy cheaper than any of the other big players T-Mobile has a $15/mo prepaid plan without having to pay a year in advance.
  - belinder 6y ago
    I'm using Mint, but they only do phones, so you can't bundle with stuff like tv or internet
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      I mean, the same can be said about T-Mobile, which to my knowledge offers neither of those things (unless you count the free Netflix).
- behringer 6y ago
  Communicate with your wallet.
tablespoon 6y ago
> Increasingly, the "if you're not paying then you're the product" saying is bunk. I am paying, almost $400 per month, for quite a few SIMs to be active on T-Mobile's network yet that's not enough. They have to harvest data about me for even more. I think the corrected slogan would be: If you're not paying, you're certainly the product. If you are paying, you still might be.
- amelius 6y ago
  The slogan is correct. But your version is probably easier to interpret correctly by most people.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Paying a company doesn’t meaningfully affect their incentives to sell your information or not.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  At this rate, the saying might as well be "if you don't own the company, you're the product". I can't imagine this sort of scumbaggery would fly with a carrier that's, say, a customer-owned cooperative.
  - skynet-9000 6y ago
    who owns any of those companies? the shareholders. are they treated any better? the issue is the spectrum auctions.. a new carrier can't even get off the ground, even if they were willing to fight through the morass of local and competing regulations to put up towers etc.
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      > who owns any of those companies? the shareholders. are they treated any better? They don't have to be, because shareholders and customers are two separate groups when it comes to traditional corporations. And even where they intersect, if dividends and growing stock prices outweigh any personal harm done to themselves as customers, they're going to take the money, every time.
rightbyte 6y ago
Are you in the EU? It sounds illegal. EDIT: Oh I didn't know T-Mobile was active in the US too.
- Tijdreiziger 6y ago
  I'm with Tele2 NL (which is just a sub-brand of T-Mobile NL) for my phone service, and I do believe the following settings were on before I turned them off: - Receive advertisements from Tele2 - Receive advertisements from third parties - Personal advice [based on my usage data] - Relevant content [ads based on my personal data] - Usage of location data [to send me ads] - Usage of my data for market research purposes
tmaly 6y ago
I can confirm this, I had already opt-ed out before. It appears they have reset my choice. What a way to build trust with your customers.
joecool1029 6y ago
Every single one of my credit/debit cards has an annual privacy notice. Every time I sign up for a card I call the line and opt-out of the sharing that they are required to let me opt-out of. The setting is retained and while the notices get sent every year, I don't have to opt-out again. Where was the notice even sent for this? Was there one? When I initially saw this reporting I figured 'Ah, they are expanding sales for earlier opted-in customers, better remind others to opt out that care about this' I share your anger.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
  I got a text message on February 24: "T-Mobile: We're updating our Terms & Conditions. To learn more: t-mo.co/terms20"
  - joecool1029 6y ago
    Interesting, I don't have any message like that on any of my lines. What state are you in, CA? I've been popping off on Twitter for a bit and it appears T-Mobile extends CCPA law benefits to all 50 states and DC/PR, they dropped this link to me: https://t-mobile.static.services.wirewheel.io/ https://t-mobile.static.services.wirewheel.io/ My guess is they prioritize notifying customers in states that have stronger privacy laws.
    - whakim 6y ago
      I just tried this and it's pretty nuts. First of all, their implementation of reCaptcha just didn't work at all for me in Firefox, and I had to switch to Chrome to even submit the request. (Captchas on CCPA request forms? Seriously?) Then, in order to verify my identity, I was asked to submit a copy of my driver's license or passport plus a current photo within 24 hours (after 24 hours I'd have to start over). I haven't made a ton of CCPA requests (probably 10 or so) but this one is by far the most onerous (not to mention that it seems like it might simply not be possible if you don't have a driver's license or passport)
xyst 6y ago
same here - I had to disable them again. The last time I checked this was ~2 years ago when it was brought up in another forum (reddit:/r/tmobile). So I am curious how long my lines have been sending data to tmobile's data warehouse
fpgaminer 6y ago
> Increasingly, the "if you're not paying then you're the product" saying is bunk It was always bunk, even for free services. Just because a company offers something for free doesn't mean they should get a free pass to abuse users. It's in this weird corporate apologetic vein where people try to find ways to blame users for a company's wrong doings. But here we are. We collectively said it's cool to do if the product is free. And that shifted the privacy overton window.
- function_seven 6y ago
  I've never interpreted that saying as a justification. It's a warning. Like, "Beware, if they're not charging you, then they're selling you". It's not bunk, it's a good reasoning. The reason it's "increasingly...bunk" now is that the implication--that paying prevents this--is turning out to be wrong. You're the product, even if you're paying.
  - fpgaminer 6y ago
    > It's a warning. That was the genesis of the phrase, yes. As a kind of corollary to caveat emptor. Yet it doesn't serve that function in practice, because in context it sneakily redirects blame onto the "emptor". Take this hypothetical discussion, for example. > Comment: I think Facebook spying on users is a gross invasion of privacy and we should advocate for better privacy laws. > Top Reply: If you aren't the customer, you're the product. In reading that, the reply doesn't read like a warning. It instead shifts the focus away from Facebook being responsible for invading people's privacy, and towards blaming people for using Facebook because they should have known better. Caveat emptor. It's been an insidious scourge on serious discussions of privacy since its inception.
    - function_seven 6y ago
      Yeah, you're right. I've seen that comment exchange too many times, with the smug undertone of "haha, you're the dumbass for having a FB account".
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Keep track of this, this is amazing data for a nice class action lawsuit.
- techsupporter 6y ago
  Unfortunately, T-Mobile, like every other mobile phone provider, has a mandatory binding arbitration clause. It does come with an opt-out provision but requires that someone have opted out within 30 days of the first time they opened their account. If a subscriber did not opt-out back then, even if the terms and conditions subsequently change, the agreement is very specific that a new opt-out opportunity is not created. I opted-out when I signed up a decade ago but I have no proof of having done that other than a website I barely remember visiting. They do not display my opt-out status anywhere and customer service claims they have no access to know whether or not I did.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    It might not apply in cases like this where they are actively changing what you are setting up as your profile settings. I.e., in their arbitration clause they clearly agreed to give users some control over some privacy settings. In changing your settings they are in breach of the clause not you.
  - harlanji 6y ago
    This clause bit Patreon IIRC hard, when a mass of people made arbitration complaints in place of a class action. It turns into a financial DDoS pretty fast.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      A similar thing happened to Uber.
acdha 6y ago
I just confirmed the same thing: all of my lines had silently been reset to sharing data with advertisers.
pessimizer 6y ago
> Nothing says a company can't make a reasonable business decision to leave money on the table. I say if you make the decision to leave money on the table, you'll be fired and replaced with someone who won't. If you own the company, you'll eventually sell it to someone who got the loan to buy you 100% based on a promise to immediately pick up the money you've been leaving on the table.
rorykoehler 6y ago
Speak with your wallet and move to a different provider.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
It is upsetting, but even more annoying is that I do not see opt-out anywhere. I am basically reliving Arthur Dent's adventure, where company can simply say "It is right over there"( buried under a pile of online forms in a never used obscure platform that requires eye scan to submit a request to respect your information ).
reustle 6y ago
How about building a service similar to unsubscribe.me which you give permission to log into each of these accounts every week or so and make sure all of these settings are always kept disabled? Would you pay $20/year for something like that?
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  Handing login details for all your accounts to a third party seems like that could have no serious repercussions to you?
jimmont 6y ago
Consider reporting this to your State and Federal trade commission and privacy enforcement entities. Moving forward it's likely useful to document the activity (screenshots and related, whatever is convenient) then followup to share the documentation with these groups.
websites2323 6y ago
‘Although the saying tells us “If it’s free, then you are the product,” that is also incorrect. We are the sources of surveillance capitalism’s crucial surplus: the objects of a technologically advanced “and increasingly inescapable raw-material-extraction operation. Surveillance capitalism’s actual customers are the enterprises that trade in its markets for future behavior.’ Excerpt From The Age of Surveillance Capitalism Shoshana Zuboff
gvd 6y ago
Americans should be made aware of how much cheaper it is in e.g. Europe. Companies are robbing us because most people think this is normal
- chii 6y ago
  defacto monopolies in the US is robbing basically everyone there.
  - asdff 6y ago
    The land owners have realized that the working people generating a savings is leaving money on the table.
zerocrates 6y ago
It's been a bad saying for a long time. People (and laws, at least in many places) just don't care enough about this stuff. It's just an extra revenue stream, it's there, and it doesn't really cost you much to tap it. Bury some opt-out in some onerous process and you're covered (if even that is required) and people mostly won't complain too much, and will actually change their behavior less. Taking it lets you compete more on things people do care about, or helps you pad the bottom line. For actual change here we need either regulations with teeth, or consumer behavior to change enough that there's a real cost to doing this stuff. Probably both. To a significant extent there aren't necessarily competitors for people to switch to in a lot of areas that are meaningfully better on privacy, and (relatedly) people often don't actually know or notice what these companies are doing, so it's tough to have "market forces" do much even if people did care.
abdullahkhalids 6y ago
> "if you're not paying then you're the product" saying is bunk The saying should be, "if the company is not subject to strong consumer protection laws that are enforced with large punishments, you are the product".
birksherty 6y ago
This is what happens in capitalism.
anoncake 6y ago
If you don't pay, you're the product. If you do pay, you're a product with disposable income.

idatum 6y ago

I noticed the same thing: I opted out (both analytics and ads options) a few months ago when I switched to T-Mobile. They since ignored my preferences and opted me back in. Unbelievable. I don't even know when they did this. Do I now have to keep checking on these settings?? Changing privacy preferences without my knowledge or permission must be made illegal. Total FB like move. Also, I'm generally tired of this concept of "ads relevant to me" BS.

SllX 6y ago
Except Facebook had respected every single privacy toggle I ever set when I had my account. I looked this morning expecting to find an additional toggle and found several settings I thought were toggled off were toggled on. I was thinking this was an oversight on my part until I saw this thread, but now I’m not so sure.
- luplex 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure Facebook is really careful around this stuff. it's illegal for them to ignore your previously made privacy choices. Facebook can't afford to break the law in such an obvious way.
  - SllX 6y ago
    No, I’m going to give them full kudos here, not the cynical “they have to be careful because reasons” type of kudos, but the full-bodied rich in flavor type of kudos. I created my account in 2007 and would regularly check the privacy settings every time they made a change of any kind up to the point I stopped using and later removed the account over a decade later. Not one privacy setting that I exerted manual control over ever changed out from under me. Whatever controversies they came under in that time with all the additional accompanying scrutiny, this aspect never changed. Perhaps there are counter examples out there, but that’s how it was for me.
    - cm2012 6y ago
      FB is more careful about privacy than 98% of companies their size.
      - samb1729 6y ago
        Do there exist 50 companies their size for that number to make sense?
      - luplex 6y ago
        I'd slightly modify that: FB is careful about privacy law, but its business model is about extracting private data.
        cm2012 6y ago
        One example: The NYTimes will sell your name + home address to other advertisers to send you mail. FB does not share your personal information with anyone, it just lets people serve ads to you on the platform based on it.
      - scubazealous 6y ago
        They are careful about privacy when you are careful of your own. There are millions of users who do not change the default settings.
- walkedaway 6y ago
  Maybe recently, but early last decade (2010-ish) they didn't. It's why I haven't had a Facebook account since then. After opting out of sharing my data, I would see my data (namely, my Facebook friends likes) pop up on third-party websites.
  - SllX 6y ago
    All of those asinine social widgets were loaded straight from Facebook.com, so it was less a case of sharing your info as it was if you were signed into Facebook, then those widgets would behave as if they were on Facebook and not a third party site. I also don’t recall if there were settings for those things, probably not because learning how else Facebook used those widgets to profile me was what prompted me to quarantine Facebook to Chrome, blacklist Facebook’s domains in NoScript and reduce then eliminate my usage.
don-code 6y ago
The answer seems to be "yes", for several reasons: 1) I also once changed my privacy preferences, but have since been opted back in. 2) I wouldn't have even known to check were it not for Hacker News, which is _not_ how I, nor hopefully anyone, would want to be notified of changes to my/their T-Mobile account. 3) I'm greeted with a generic "Update Operation Failed" when I try to opt any of the lines on my account back out, so now I have even less faith that my changes will stick.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  Vote with your $$$. Get a new mobile network.
  - hyperbovine 6y ago
    Hard to do when "# of alternative networks" is tending asymptotically to zero.
    - jonplackett 6y ago
      It's weird/sad how the land of capitalism is trending towards the land of monopolism.
      - marshmallow_12 6y ago
        that is what capitalisim is.
        skynet-9000 6y ago
        that's what socialism is (well, if they're govt controlled or effectively govt controlled). real capitalism encourages competition, and real entrepreneurs try to discourage it and gain an effective monopoly. that tension is part of the beauty of the whole thing, but when govt approves these mergers with government granted monopolies (i.e., the wireless spectrum), then it all goes to pot very fast.
cbsks 6y ago
Me three. I definitely have opted out of analytics and ad tracking before, but I just rechecked my settings in the T-Mobile app and both were enabled. What a slimey thing for them to do. Does anyone have any suggestions for a better cell carrier in the US?
- harlanji 6y ago
  Yuck. I just switched to them from Verizon who I left for scummy business practice. On to the next carrier, AT&T.
  - ramphastidae 6y ago
    AT&T is the absolute worst of the three IMO. Poorest offering, highest cost.
    - skynet-9000 6y ago
      Their prepaid plan is only $25/mo w/ 8gb lte when prepaid the year in advance. That's wayyy cheaper than any of the other big players, and their network/coverage is supposed to be better than t-mobile (and almost as good as verizon).
      - Gh0stRAT 6y ago
        >That's wayyy cheaper than any of the other big players T-Mobile has a $15/mo prepaid plan without having to pay a year in advance.
- belinder 6y ago
  I'm using Mint, but they only do phones, so you can't bundle with stuff like tv or internet
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    I mean, the same can be said about T-Mobile, which to my knowledge offers neither of those things (unless you count the free Netflix).
behringer 6y ago
Communicate with your wallet.

tablespoon 6y ago

> Increasingly, the "if you're not paying then you're the product" saying is bunk. I am paying, almost $400 per month, for quite a few SIMs to be active on T-Mobile's network yet that's not enough. They have to harvest data about me for even more. I think the corrected slogan would be: If you're not paying, you're certainly the product. If you are paying, you still might be.

amelius 6y ago
The slogan is correct. But your version is probably easier to interpret correctly by most people.
Spivak 6y ago
Paying a company doesn’t meaningfully affect their incentives to sell your information or not.
yellowapple 6y ago
At this rate, the saying might as well be "if you don't own the company, you're the product". I can't imagine this sort of scumbaggery would fly with a carrier that's, say, a customer-owned cooperative.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  who owns any of those companies? the shareholders. are they treated any better? the issue is the spectrum auctions.. a new carrier can't even get off the ground, even if they were willing to fight through the morass of local and competing regulations to put up towers etc.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    > who owns any of those companies? the shareholders. are they treated any better? They don't have to be, because shareholders and customers are two separate groups when it comes to traditional corporations. And even where they intersect, if dividends and growing stock prices outweigh any personal harm done to themselves as customers, they're going to take the money, every time.

rightbyte 6y ago

Are you in the EU? It sounds illegal. EDIT: Oh I didn't know T-Mobile was active in the US too.

Tijdreiziger 6y ago
I'm with Tele2 NL (which is just a sub-brand of T-Mobile NL) for my phone service, and I do believe the following settings were on before I turned them off: - Receive advertisements from Tele2 - Receive advertisements from third parties - Personal advice [based on my usage data] - Relevant content [ads based on my personal data] - Usage of location data [to send me ads] - Usage of my data for market research purposes

tmaly 6y ago

I can confirm this, I had already opt-ed out before. It appears they have reset my choice. What a way to build trust with your customers.

joecool1029 6y ago

Every single one of my credit/debit cards has an annual privacy notice. Every time I sign up for a card I call the line and opt-out of the sharing that they are required to let me opt-out of. The setting is retained and while the notices get sent every year, I don't have to opt-out again. Where was the notice even sent for this? Was there one? When I initially saw this reporting I figured 'Ah, they are expanding sales for earlier opted-in customers, better remind others to opt out that care about this' I share your anger.

pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
I got a text message on February 24: "T-Mobile: We're updating our Terms & Conditions. To learn more: t-mo.co/terms20"
- joecool1029 6y ago
  Interesting, I don't have any message like that on any of my lines. What state are you in, CA? I've been popping off on Twitter for a bit and it appears T-Mobile extends CCPA law benefits to all 50 states and DC/PR, they dropped this link to me: https://t-mobile.static.services.wirewheel.io/ https://t-mobile.static.services.wirewheel.io/ My guess is they prioritize notifying customers in states that have stronger privacy laws.
  - whakim 6y ago
    I just tried this and it's pretty nuts. First of all, their implementation of reCaptcha just didn't work at all for me in Firefox, and I had to switch to Chrome to even submit the request. (Captchas on CCPA request forms? Seriously?) Then, in order to verify my identity, I was asked to submit a copy of my driver's license or passport plus a current photo within 24 hours (after 24 hours I'd have to start over). I haven't made a ton of CCPA requests (probably 10 or so) but this one is by far the most onerous (not to mention that it seems like it might simply not be possible if you don't have a driver's license or passport)

xyst 6y ago

same here - I had to disable them again. The last time I checked this was ~2 years ago when it was brought up in another forum (reddit:/r/tmobile). So I am curious how long my lines have been sending data to tmobile's data warehouse

fpgaminer 6y ago

> Increasingly, the "if you're not paying then you're the product" saying is bunk It was always bunk, even for free services. Just because a company offers something for free doesn't mean they should get a free pass to abuse users. It's in this weird corporate apologetic vein where people try to find ways to blame users for a company's wrong doings. But here we are. We collectively said it's cool to do if the product is free. And that shifted the privacy overton window.

function_seven 6y ago
I've never interpreted that saying as a justification. It's a warning. Like, "Beware, if they're not charging you, then they're selling you". It's not bunk, it's a good reasoning. The reason it's "increasingly...bunk" now is that the implication--that paying prevents this--is turning out to be wrong. You're the product, even if you're paying.
- fpgaminer 6y ago
  > It's a warning. That was the genesis of the phrase, yes. As a kind of corollary to caveat emptor. Yet it doesn't serve that function in practice, because in context it sneakily redirects blame onto the "emptor". Take this hypothetical discussion, for example. > Comment: I think Facebook spying on users is a gross invasion of privacy and we should advocate for better privacy laws. > Top Reply: If you aren't the customer, you're the product. In reading that, the reply doesn't read like a warning. It instead shifts the focus away from Facebook being responsible for invading people's privacy, and towards blaming people for using Facebook because they should have known better. Caveat emptor. It's been an insidious scourge on serious discussions of privacy since its inception.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    Yeah, you're right. I've seen that comment exchange too many times, with the smug undertone of "haha, you're the dumbass for having a FB account".

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Keep track of this, this is amazing data for a nice class action lawsuit.

techsupporter 6y ago
Unfortunately, T-Mobile, like every other mobile phone provider, has a mandatory binding arbitration clause. It does come with an opt-out provision but requires that someone have opted out within 30 days of the first time they opened their account. If a subscriber did not opt-out back then, even if the terms and conditions subsequently change, the agreement is very specific that a new opt-out opportunity is not created. I opted-out when I signed up a decade ago but I have no proof of having done that other than a website I barely remember visiting. They do not display my opt-out status anywhere and customer service claims they have no access to know whether or not I did.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  It might not apply in cases like this where they are actively changing what you are setting up as your profile settings. I.e., in their arbitration clause they clearly agreed to give users some control over some privacy settings. In changing your settings they are in breach of the clause not you.
- harlanji 6y ago
  This clause bit Patreon IIRC hard, when a mass of people made arbitration complaints in place of a class action. It turns into a financial DDoS pretty fast.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    A similar thing happened to Uber.

acdha 6y ago

I just confirmed the same thing: all of my lines had silently been reset to sharing data with advertisers.

pessimizer 6y ago

> Nothing says a company can't make a reasonable business decision to leave money on the table. I say if you make the decision to leave money on the table, you'll be fired and replaced with someone who won't. If you own the company, you'll eventually sell it to someone who got the loan to buy you 100% based on a promise to immediately pick up the money you've been leaving on the table.

rorykoehler 6y ago

Speak with your wallet and move to a different provider.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

It is upsetting, but even more annoying is that I do not see opt-out anywhere. I am basically reliving Arthur Dent's adventure, where company can simply say "It is right over there"( buried under a pile of online forms in a never used obscure platform that requires eye scan to submit a request to respect your information ).

reustle 6y ago

How about building a service similar to unsubscribe.me which you give permission to log into each of these accounts every week or so and make sure all of these settings are always kept disabled? Would you pay $20/year for something like that?

jsjohnst 6y ago
Handing login details for all your accounts to a third party seems like that could have no serious repercussions to you?

jimmont 6y ago

Consider reporting this to your State and Federal trade commission and privacy enforcement entities. Moving forward it's likely useful to document the activity (screenshots and related, whatever is convenient) then followup to share the documentation with these groups.

websites2323 6y ago

‘Although the saying tells us “If it’s free, then you are the product,” that is also incorrect. We are the sources of surveillance capitalism’s crucial surplus: the objects of a technologically advanced “and increasingly inescapable raw-material-extraction operation. Surveillance capitalism’s actual customers are the enterprises that trade in its markets for future behavior.’ Excerpt From The Age of Surveillance Capitalism Shoshana Zuboff

gvd 6y ago

Americans should be made aware of how much cheaper it is in e.g. Europe. Companies are robbing us because most people think this is normal

chii 6y ago
defacto monopolies in the US is robbing basically everyone there.
- asdff 6y ago
  The land owners have realized that the working people generating a savings is leaving money on the table.

zerocrates 6y ago

It's been a bad saying for a long time. People (and laws, at least in many places) just don't care enough about this stuff. It's just an extra revenue stream, it's there, and it doesn't really cost you much to tap it. Bury some opt-out in some onerous process and you're covered (if even that is required) and people mostly won't complain too much, and will actually change their behavior less. Taking it lets you compete more on things people do care about, or helps you pad the bottom line. For actual change here we need either regulations with teeth, or consumer behavior to change enough that there's a real cost to doing this stuff. Probably both. To a significant extent there aren't necessarily competitors for people to switch to in a lot of areas that are meaningfully better on privacy, and (relatedly) people often don't actually know or notice what these companies are doing, so it's tough to have "market forces" do much even if people did care.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago

> "if you're not paying then you're the product" saying is bunk The saying should be, "if the company is not subject to strong consumer protection laws that are enforced with large punishments, you are the product".

birksherty 6y ago

This is what happens in capitalism.

anoncake 6y ago

If you don't pay, you're the product. If you do pay, you're a product with disposable income.