4 ms·

There needs to be? Who will pay for it?

by veave 3y ago

nologic01 3y ago
This is a false argument that destroys the soul of tech. We are paying for pretty much everything and in countless different ways (including taxes) The idea that the only way "to pay" is to some oligopoly keen on surveillance capitalism is absurd. If well-intentioned it is just self-limiting.
- veave 3y ago
  Even if we believed that we have to steal money from everybody to pay for an alternative to instagram... we have already tried that. The EU gives grants. You can tell a business is European and has taken a grant because the footer of the website includes the EU flag. This programme has existed for a long time now. How many websites do you use daily that have the EU flag in the footer? ...yeah, thought so.
- Eumenes 3y ago
  You still didn't answer their question. Creating well made privacy first browsers, web tools, apps is expensive. Open source is great, but isn't going to appeal to the masses, who prefer features + convenience over privacy. Someone has to build it. Who is going to win in the long run? The small number of people who care about privacy/their data VS the billions willingly using these malicious services? Even in tech/IT crowds, most don't care about privacy first products. Even on this forum it seems to be pretty split down the middle. Internet users have been getting free browsers, email, search, etc, for a very long time now. I don't see the average person waking up one day and saying, 'I want to take my data back'. The government is not to be trusted. Personally, I think abstinence is the only solution.
  - nologic01 3y ago
    This is defeatist and normalizing a situation that is abnormal. People pay for hardware, bandwidth and pretty much all software but somehow a few trinkets must be paid with relinquishing privacy.
    - veave 3y ago
      The only reason people pay for those things is because no one offers them for free yet. If they did they would be really happy to trade their privacy. For example, Chinese smartphones are full of tracking ads, which is why they are so cheap, and they are extremely popular.
      - nologic01 3y ago
        This is true, but its also an unworkable dead end for the tech industry. Private data is worth alot, but it cannot compensate for all the potentially valuable products people would happily pay for. By undermining trust with users (turning them into products) they put a lid on the market. So even from a pure financial perspective they have opted for short term profit and killing the golden goose.
    - Eumenes 3y ago
      I'm on your side ... The defeatism is real, I can't really name a single win. GDPR? Protests against SOPA/PIPA? Net neutrality? Apple not giving up passcodes to LEO (they do)? I've attempted to educate friends/family on tech privacy concerns, but nobody cares, even my friends in the industry. I have many tech friends that won't even modify their home network, let alone ditch FB or Google or Snapchat or Tiktok. Ultimately, computing and the internet is untrustworthy and always will be so. I don't possess the knowledge or time to assess every line of code or dependency in a project. Let alone backdoors in chips, hardware, and my ISP providing a line to the NSA. Abstinence + sabotage of platforms is probably the only way. Keep the corporate developers busy fighting spam, fraud, abuse - make it unprofitable to build spyware.
      - nologic01 3y ago
        I cant deny any of that. Its more or less my experience. Ultimately it boils down to fundamental optimism or pessisism that is not necessarily linked causally to empirical data. To me the commingled business models of big tech as we have come to know them, dipping their fingers at every possible data jar, are an outlier, a dissonance. How and when this could resolve into something more stable its not obvious. Politicians can go being immoral and look the other way for a long time. But you cant buy all the politicians all the time. If we start by clearly separating what is really free (because its a commmon public good paid by all), from what is paid by users to private companies for real services provided in competitive markets and with respects to their clients (not product) we'll be on a good path. National security related privacy is another can of worms altogether. You really dont want a repeat of 20th century dictators dissolving democracy and exterminating whomever they managed to cast as the enemy with the ruthless efficiency of an AI guided panopticon. I mean these things are pretty basic. Only when we give up on common sense will dystopia become a reality.
- throw10920 3y ago
  > This is a false argument that destroys the soul of tech. It's not a false argument, it's a question. Which you pointedly didn't answer, and instead resorted to base emotional manipulation. > The idea that the only way "to pay" is to some oligopoly keen on surveillance capitalism is absurd. Strawman - nobody proposed that idea except you.
jpalomaki 3y ago
It be healthier if users would pay for the services with money.
- veave 3y ago
  But they don't want to. I sure don't want to pay to watch videos on youtube. I'd rather they made a profile of me and stored it to serve me ads that I won't even see.

There needs to be? Who will pay for it?

by veave 3y ago

There needs to be? Who will pay for it?

This is a false argument that destroys the soul of tech. We are paying for pretty much everything and in countless different ways (including taxes) The idea that the only way "to pay" is to some oligopoly keen on surveillance capitalism is absurd. If well-intentioned it is just self-limiting.

veave 3y ago
Even if we believed that we have to steal money from everybody to pay for an alternative to instagram... we have already tried that. The EU gives grants. You can tell a business is European and has taken a grant because the footer of the website includes the EU flag. This programme has existed for a long time now. How many websites do you use daily that have the EU flag in the footer? ...yeah, thought so.
Eumenes 3y ago
You still didn't answer their question. Creating well made privacy first browsers, web tools, apps is expensive. Open source is great, but isn't going to appeal to the masses, who prefer features + convenience over privacy. Someone has to build it. Who is going to win in the long run? The small number of people who care about privacy/their data VS the billions willingly using these malicious services? Even in tech/IT crowds, most don't care about privacy first products. Even on this forum it seems to be pretty split down the middle. Internet users have been getting free browsers, email, search, etc, for a very long time now. I don't see the average person waking up one day and saying, 'I want to take my data back'. The government is not to be trusted. Personally, I think abstinence is the only solution.
- nologic01 3y ago
  This is defeatist and normalizing a situation that is abnormal. People pay for hardware, bandwidth and pretty much all software but somehow a few trinkets must be paid with relinquishing privacy.
  - veave 3y ago
    The only reason people pay for those things is because no one offers them for free yet. If they did they would be really happy to trade their privacy. For example, Chinese smartphones are full of tracking ads, which is why they are so cheap, and they are extremely popular.
    - nologic01 3y ago
      This is true, but its also an unworkable dead end for the tech industry. Private data is worth alot, but it cannot compensate for all the potentially valuable products people would happily pay for. By undermining trust with users (turning them into products) they put a lid on the market. So even from a pure financial perspective they have opted for short term profit and killing the golden goose.
  - Eumenes 3y ago
    I'm on your side ... The defeatism is real, I can't really name a single win. GDPR? Protests against SOPA/PIPA? Net neutrality? Apple not giving up passcodes to LEO (they do)? I've attempted to educate friends/family on tech privacy concerns, but nobody cares, even my friends in the industry. I have many tech friends that won't even modify their home network, let alone ditch FB or Google or Snapchat or Tiktok. Ultimately, computing and the internet is untrustworthy and always will be so. I don't possess the knowledge or time to assess every line of code or dependency in a project. Let alone backdoors in chips, hardware, and my ISP providing a line to the NSA. Abstinence + sabotage of platforms is probably the only way. Keep the corporate developers busy fighting spam, fraud, abuse - make it unprofitable to build spyware.
    - nologic01 3y ago
      I cant deny any of that. Its more or less my experience. Ultimately it boils down to fundamental optimism or pessisism that is not necessarily linked causally to empirical data. To me the commingled business models of big tech as we have come to know them, dipping their fingers at every possible data jar, are an outlier, a dissonance. How and when this could resolve into something more stable its not obvious. Politicians can go being immoral and look the other way for a long time. But you cant buy all the politicians all the time. If we start by clearly separating what is really free (because its a commmon public good paid by all), from what is paid by users to private companies for real services provided in competitive markets and with respects to their clients (not product) we'll be on a good path. National security related privacy is another can of worms altogether. You really dont want a repeat of 20th century dictators dissolving democracy and exterminating whomever they managed to cast as the enemy with the ruthless efficiency of an AI guided panopticon. I mean these things are pretty basic. Only when we give up on common sense will dystopia become a reality.
throw10920 3y ago
> This is a false argument that destroys the soul of tech. It's not a false argument, it's a question. Which you pointedly didn't answer, and instead resorted to base emotional manipulation. > The idea that the only way "to pay" is to some oligopoly keen on surveillance capitalism is absurd. Strawman - nobody proposed that idea except you.

jpalomaki 3y ago

It be healthier if users would pay for the services with money.

veave 3y ago
But they don't want to. I sure don't want to pay to watch videos on youtube. I'd rather they made a profile of me and stored it to serve me ads that I won't even see.