3 ms·
Someone on the Internet is lying and misrepresenting themselves? Nooo! (The rest isn't a response to seanhunter's comment, but a comment on the discussion in g
by bborud 5y ago
Someone on the Internet is lying and misrepresenting themselves? Nooo!
(The rest isn't a response to seanhunter's comment, but a comment on the discussion in general)
If we take a step back from the discussion; I'd have to say that this is in a gray area that kind of ends up being mostly in the "ok" region - or possibly in the "probably not worth giving a shit about" region. There is a simple litmus test you can make: how would people have reacted if this had been limited to large corporations you do not like? The response would have been very different.
Let us at least be honest enough to admit that to ourselves.
That this is part of academic research doesn't really change anything.
It also needs to be said that people tend to be too uptight about perceived small infringements on what they see as their inalienable rights. If we are going to label subjects of what is at best described as akin to consumer research as victims we are watering out the term to the point where every person who has accessed the web is essentially a victim.
Hence the victim blaming someone tried to call out in a comment, is needless douchebaggery and drama. There are real victims of real transgressions and this is belittling.
People need to take themselves a bit less seriously. You are part of human subject research studies every time you use the web. And yet you come back for more every day.
Half of you probably contribute code and time to an industry that turns human behavior into numbers that the is translated into cash. And proudly so. Hypocrisy just makes us all look like douchebags.
- dawnbreez 5y ago> how would people have reacted if this had been limited to large corporations you do not like? Those large corporations we do not like have lawyers on retainer specifically to deal with this situation (probably by suing the pants off of whoever sent the email). It is acceptable to react differently when the victim is defenseless. That is why we would have a different reaction to a large corporation being struck by this, versus an individual who may not be able to afford legal counsel (and who certainly can't afford to pay legal counsel when the threat turns out to be baseless).
- bborud 5y agoSo you are making the argument that one should apply different rules to different people depending on how much money they have. Well, no way that could go wrong. Interesting how you also make the tortured argument that privacy laws create victims.
- dawnbreez 5y agoI am making the argument that a company that already has lawyers on retainer for this occasion is not suffering the same harm that someone who does not have a lawyer on retainer does. Similarly, someone who can't afford a lawyer at all is disproportionately likely to be harmed compared to a company that has competent legal staff. Also, "privacy laws create victims" is--to use your own phrase--a very tortured version of what's going on here. The people affected by this study were threatened with legal action. That is what they are victims of. Regardless of what law was used as an excuse, threatening someone with frivolous legal action is as bad as threatening someone with SWATting.