4 ms·

> I think we can agree that none of us likes to be taken advantage of, and this law is trying to stop that. The disagreement is over whether paying for informa

> I think we can agree that none of us likes to be taken advantage of, and this law is trying to stop that. The disagreement is over whether paying for information services with your personal data is being taken advantage of. Yes, there's an imbalance of size, and of information, but the attention market is also intensely competitive and - even in social media - switching costs for the consumer are low. A market-oriented solution would have been to sponsor independent organizations to score websites on privacy.

ghusto 4y ago
> The disagreement is over whether paying for information services with your personal data is being taken advantage of Sure, if that was clear then we'd be in agreement. The EU law is aiming to make it clearer that you are indeed "paying" for the use of the website with your privacy. Personally, I'm happy to pay for services with money, and do so whenever I feel a service is good enough. I'd wager a significant portion of average users would be too, if they knew what was happening with the profiles built up on them. Putting that aside for a moment: If we paid for services, then it would promote good services. When we pay with our privacy, it promotes more effective data collection that doesn't have anything to do with the service, such as a focus on "engagement" (and everything that entails, that you've already alluded to).