2 ms·
> Why do jumped-up little bureaucrats always appropriate other people’s power of choice They don't. What they say is that businesses shouldn't assume that peop
by illiarian 4y ago
> Why do jumped-up little bureaucrats always appropriate other people’s power of choice
They don't. What they say is that businesses shouldn't assume that people's private data is theirs for the taking. People still have the choice to opt-in to pervasive tracking.
- FredPret 4y ago> “should you be making the decision for me that I can't participate in that transaction?" To which my answer is yes.”
- illiarian 4y agoYou can participate in transaction. If the business asks you if you want to participate in the transaction, literally no one is stopping you from saying yes.
- FredPret 4y agoNo-one but alkonaut and their autocratic fellow-travellers
- illiarian 4y ago[flagged]
- alkonaut 4y agoYea I’m sticking to that argument. Basically: I think it would be fine for anyone to participate in market transactions with transparency. But I don’t think there can be transparency here, or that if we really tried then almost no one would accept the transaction anyway. So I’m thinking a ban of the transactions is the lesser evil. We already ban e.g sale of your own organs. I’m fine with that too. Now, am I the right person to decide whether people value their kidneys like their integrity? Yes.