3 ms·

A TOS is absolutely not a contract that people enter into fully aware of the implications. We should have granular control over the permissions we give compani

A TOS is absolutely not a contract that people enter into fully aware of the implications. We should have granular control over the permissions we give companies in how they use data. I don't feel it is enough to require clear disclosure of the ways a company uses data, I think they should require explicit and knowing consent from the user, and the user should have a meaningful way to withhold consent other than to abstain entirely from using any online services. It is hardly fair or equitable, and surely should not be legal that a company can, without any meaningful way for a user to withhold their consent, declare & demand unlimited control and benefit (of/from the user's data) for any purpose whatsoever, including sharing and selling said data for a profit to data brokers who have no contractual obligation to the user once they obtain the data.

godelski 3y ago
I'm fully with you, but my question is how you actually inform people at the power of their data? I often pressure people into chatting with me through Signal and I'll be honest, there is often a defeatist or lack of knowledge at what this data can be used for even among graduate CS students. Honestly, I think one of the major issues is that the world is exceptionally complex these days (well, always has been, but surely there's more now). Our entire world runs on specialization but we often act as if one needs to be an expert in nearly every domain. Is not the definition of an expert someone who understands the nuances and complexities of said niche? It would then seem de facto unreasonable for people to have a nuanced understanding of practically any given subject. Because of this, I want to question the common framing about focusing on informing people. I don't want to stop informing people, to be clear. But I think we should look for solutions that are not reliant upon people being informed, as this is clearly not a scalable nor stable mechanism for creatures with finite ̶t̶a̶p̶e̶ ̶ knowledge and finite time.
- 20after4 3y ago
  The thing is, people don't have the ability to withhold consent. I don't think people would need to be fully informed to realize that withholding consent is better than giving it, if that was actually a viable choice to make. I mostly trust Mozilla but I still turn off all of their data collection in Firefox. This wasn't always my default but it is now my default in any place where I am given the choice. It really is difficult to understand all of the implications and it's taken me years of experience to realize that I should just default to presuming that data collection is going to be bad for me in the long run. When there is a complex and nuanced situation involving a binary choice then all you really need to know is which of the two choices is generally more likely to be in your best interest, then always choose that one. For data collection the safe bet is always "no"
  - godelski 3y ago
    Yeah that's how I am too, even with Mozilla. For the same reason: default to the most secure option. Everything is so complex that I can't know what my information makes me vulnerable of.

godelski 3y ago

I'm fully with you, but my question is how you actually inform people at the power of their data? I often pressure people into chatting with me through Signal and I'll be honest, there is often a defeatist or lack of knowledge at what this data can be used for even among graduate CS students. Honestly, I think one of the major issues is that the world is exceptionally complex these days (well, always has been, but surely there's more now). Our entire world runs on specialization but we often act as if one needs to be an expert in nearly every domain. Is not the definition of an expert someone who understands the nuances and complexities of said niche? It would then seem de facto unreasonable for people to have a nuanced understanding of practically any given subject. Because of this, I want to question the common framing about focusing on informing people. I don't want to stop informing people, to be clear. But I think we should look for solutions that are not reliant upon people being informed, as this is clearly not a scalable nor stable mechanism for creatures with finite ̶t̶a̶p̶e̶ ̶ knowledge and finite time.

20after4 3y ago
The thing is, people don't have the ability to withhold consent. I don't think people would need to be fully informed to realize that withholding consent is better than giving it, if that was actually a viable choice to make. I mostly trust Mozilla but I still turn off all of their data collection in Firefox. This wasn't always my default but it is now my default in any place where I am given the choice. It really is difficult to understand all of the implications and it's taken me years of experience to realize that I should just default to presuming that data collection is going to be bad for me in the long run. When there is a complex and nuanced situation involving a binary choice then all you really need to know is which of the two choices is generally more likely to be in your best interest, then always choose that one. For data collection the safe bet is always "no"
- godelski 3y ago
  Yeah that's how I am too, even with Mozilla. For the same reason: default to the most secure option. Everything is so complex that I can't know what my information makes me vulnerable of.