3 ms·
First of all, the reason people view the government using the data as different is that the government has coercive powers (and a monopoly on Violence) that oth
by cascom 5y ago
First of all, the reason people view the government using the data as different is that the government has coercive powers (and a monopoly on Violence) that other actors don’t.
Secondly, the government making use of an unethical or nefarious practice only serves to legitimize it, and make it harder to roll back.
Lastly, if everything was above board, why be forthright about the use the employment of such data sets?
- gruez 5y ago> First of all, the reason people view the government using the data as different is that the government has coercive powers (and a monopoly on Violence) that other actors don’t. But that's not really applicable here because they're not using their "coercive powers" to get the data. They're getting data that anyone else could get by paying enough money.
- cascom 5y agoBut some advertiser can’t put you in prison
- speed_spread 5y agoDon't be fooled by the government vs private sector dichotomy. State may have a "monopoly on physical violence" but dutifully lends said forces to protect private assets. In return, corporations let intelligence agencies tap into their data streams to scan for "interesting patterns". It's one system. Also, advertisers _do_ maintain a prison of the mind by entertaining futile, elusive, ever-shifting goals to divert energy that could be spent in trying to change things.