5 ms·

But as you say, they aren't asking you to give up your rights (because of the 'or pay money' clause). You can just stop using it. If you want to use it and not

• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• tagyro 3y ago
  I don't agree - you can't just stop using it. Given the size of facebook (or google, amazon, microsoft, apple etc), they are ingrained in our (tech) life in such a way that one has to invest a - not negligible - amount of work to stop using them. To sum it up: companies want to have "power", but without having "responsibility".
  • graphe 3y ago
    You CAN stop using them. Do you WANT to? Are you unable to? Social media addiction isn't a right, and just because you have a share to Facebook or Twitter integration doesn't mean you have to use either.
  • OhNoNotAgain_99 3y ago
    [dead]
  • dadadatamen 3y ago
    You can. It's almost quite literally an effort of 30 - 60 min per day or week or month, depending on how skilled you are at keeping things convenient, meaning self-hosting services and maintaining them.
    • theonlybutlet 3y ago
      And say getting a job, when everything is through LinkedIn?
      • dadadatamen 3y ago
        You can get the contact details of the hiring manager on the companies website or call their front desk or ask in an E-Mail to info@xyz or support@xyz or even by asking around. and there are various ways to prove your value that are not based on networks
        • theonlybutlet 3y ago
          You won't know unless you saw the listing, which these days is put on LinkedIn.
          • dadadatamen 3y ago
            well, change your way of picking an employer, I guess?! the thing is, almost everyone is or will be looking in the near future.
            • theonlybutlet 3y ago
              What I do is of no consequence if that's all hiring managers do. These apps can become systemic.
              • dadadatamen 3y ago
                attentional bias. That's not all all hiring managers do.
    • tempaccount1234 3y ago
      You can, but if you decide to stay away from messengers like WhatsApp, you miss out. Which is OK unless you have kids in school age. Once a service gets so big, that you are practically forced to join, regulation seems like a very good idea
      • hackideiomat 3y ago
        teach your kids signal?
        • logifail 3y ago
          > teach your kids signal? Getting your own kids to switch messenging client is fairly trivial. Then they can talk to you (and to each other). The network effect means you then have to persuade other kids, and parents, and sports coaches, and music teachers and ... to switch. (Source: have three kids and we have exactly this issue)
          • dadadatamen 3y ago
            Did you organize meetings with parents? In coop with teachers? Signal is spy stuff. WhatsApp means obedience and submission.
            • logifail 3y ago
              > Did you organize meetings with parents? In coop with teachers? At least where we are, schools have been told not to touch WhatsApp at all, and use another (more GDPR-compliant) messaging product; despite this there is typically an unofficial WhatsApp group for each class, but no teachers are members. > WhatsApp means obedience and submission I don't disagree, but I don't think you'll convince many parents to stop using WhatsApp if you approach it like that. My impression is that most parents are very busy people and are just trying to keep up with the chaos caused by their kids; they will opt for the easiest solution that solves their problem.
      • dadadatamen 3y ago
  • pests 3y ago
    What? They are not a neccessity. You are speaking like technology is food and water. I have family my age and older who don't never use Facebook and barely interact with technology and they get by life just fine.
• piaste 3y ago
  The "or you can give up your rights in exchange for a discount" part is the problem. You can't buy a car by agreeing to be a slave for 90 days either. Commercial subscription services that don't violate your privacy are 100% fine, and incidentally, as xp84 noted, are way healthier because the user is at least a customer. (I dream of a day where companies spend $0 on advertising and instead all commercial websites and social media are run on small subscriptions or frictionless micropayments and the only person they need to keep happy is the customer.) Of course "free" services have a massive advantage over paid ones. If Meta can profitably run Facebook just on generic ads without tracking, like a newspaper, that's allowed too. But if they can't, well, tough shit.
  • pests 3y ago
    > You can't buy a car by agreeing to be a slave for 90 days either. Sorta??? It's not like I volunteer my time to my job.
• interactivecode 3y ago
  Thats like saying, if you don’t like lead in your paint. You can just use different paint. Like yeah sure, but still some regulations that stop them from putting lead in paint is a good thing
• anilakar 3y ago
  >> Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, > If you want to use it and not give up rights, pay money. Ahh, we are not asking you to sell. We are asking you to give them in exchange for services.
  • A_non_e-moose 3y ago
    > >> Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, > Ahh, we are not asking you to sell. We are asking you to give them in exchange for services. That's covered in the "or otherwise relinquish your rights" part. Privacy is a right, you can't sell or relinquish it, in exchange or donated, doesn't matter.
• disiplus 3y ago
  It does not work like that, the country made some laws. For example what safety rules does the car have to follow to be legal in us. You cannot just say, if you don't like that the car does not have a backup camera doesn't use it.
• stubish 3y ago
  In the case of the right of privacy, what is wrong with your suggestion is that it is what we have today, and we end up where we are today. You must sacrifice your right of privacy to use Facebook, Twitter and others. And using Facebook, Twitter and others is not a choice for many people. It is forced on many (most?) by rules of employment (some schools require teachers to be on Facebook for example), economic reasons (must be on social media to be economically competitive), or just social (all my friends are there, so I need to be there too). Choosing to retain your right of privacy is a sacrifice, which is to say that maintaining your right of privacy has a cost. The EU has said that there should not be a cost to preserving what it sees as a right. Not everyone can afford to pay that cost.