3 ms·
I don't agree. If the data is worth something, I think they owe its users a share of it. So I'd argue the users are being forced to leave money on the table and
by lucasyvas 4y ago
I don't agree. If the data is worth something, I think they owe its users a share of it. So I'd argue the users are being forced to leave money on the table and it's actually a negative transaction.
- googlryas 4y agoThe users get a share of it by being able to use Facebook for free
- wahnfrieden 4y agoaka a shit deal
- googlryas 4y agoIt's entirely their choice to make.
- wahnfrieden 4y agolol ok, the off topic libertarian response
- googlryas 4y agoEntering an agreement with expected benefits for both parties isn't some libertarian concept.
- CRConrad 4y agoBut the well-informed player playing up the percieved benefits to, and hiding the not-directly-monetary costs for, the chump[1], that very much is. (Well, it's an arsehole-capitalist concept, but isn't that pretty much what "libertarian" means in practice nowadays?) ___ [1]: User, product, whatever you want to call them.