3 ms·
The parsimonious explanation is that most people do not care about this issue as much as you do, which suggests quite plainly that no such regulation is necessa
by dionidium 3y ago
The parsimonious explanation is that most people do not care about this issue as much as you do, which suggests quite plainly that no such regulation is necessary. You might want to consider that your views on privacy are eccentric and unpopular and that nobody is asking for laws to "protect them" from something that doesn't bother them in the first place.
- the_gastropod 3y agoYou’re kind of suggesting that most people understand this issue and still don’t care about it. I suspect that’s very much not the case. Like with leaded gasoline, a lack of major public outcry does not imply there’s no need for government regulation.
- ethbr0 3y agoIndeed. People cannot be said to be making a choice when they're uninformed about the relevant details. Study after study has shown that the general public has no idea about how their data is bought and sold, beyond "Oh, yeah, some tracking is done." Chain of custody and user visible notification would change that. Not "data may be used by third parties" but rather "{Toyota} sold your {radio listening data} to {iHeartRadio} on {6/23/2023}."