5 ms·

> 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 so

> 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".

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".