4 ms·

Because they want to exploit your personal information to sell to advertisers and take a cut from other advertising sales?

brigadier132 2y ago
Exploit is an interesting word. It's almost always exploited by people as a way to frame basic economic transactions negatively. Such as in a situation where people can search for information or store thousands of photos and communicate with others for free. Anyway, google and facebook don't sell personal information. They sell the ability to target ads at people using the information they collect.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  It becomes exploitative when there is a power imbalance that is leveraged against the weaker party.
- epicide 2y ago
  It seems like OP meant for it to be negative because they think that it is negative. You're just explaining their point back to them. Just because transactions are "basic" doesn't mean they aren't also negative and, therefore, exploitative. The bit about them not selling your information outright: the way that they sell those ads is based off of your information. The way that they do so matters, but not as much for this particular conversation: they are still exploiting your data regardless of the precise way that they package it. Yes, you can use their services to get features and abilities for free. Nobody is saying that part is bad. The problem is that they have made it hard/impossible to go anywhere else if you don't want to use them. The "company stores" of yore also made it particularly easy to get the tools and supplies you needed, but it was still an unfair trade. The fact that Google and Facebook make such massive economic profit off of something supposedly so worthless as personal data just doesn't add up.
- gravescale 2y ago
  If it's a fair trade made between consenting, rational, partners both in full possession of the facts, why are companies so cagey about what information they're gathering from users? If it was a fair trade and users were aware, they surely don't need to be so worried. You wouldn't need to threaten with data protection laws, and you wouldn't have to require consent for information gathering and tracking, users would know exactly what it is worth and give it willingly if they agreed with the value propositions. Or, is it actually that very many people are almost entirely unaware of the information they're providing (leaking) in the "transaction", or are unaware they're even making such a a trade in the first place. A bit like having a small, discreet, densely typed sign saying a shop is using CCTV and by entering you agree to be surveilled, but what you're actually doing is using the cameras to read PINs entered into the card readers.

brigadier132 2y ago

Exploit is an interesting word. It's almost always exploited by people as a way to frame basic economic transactions negatively. Such as in a situation where people can search for information or store thousands of photos and communicate with others for free. Anyway, google and facebook don't sell personal information. They sell the ability to target ads at people using the information they collect.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
It becomes exploitative when there is a power imbalance that is leveraged against the weaker party.
epicide 2y ago
It seems like OP meant for it to be negative because they think that it is negative. You're just explaining their point back to them. Just because transactions are "basic" doesn't mean they aren't also negative and, therefore, exploitative. The bit about them not selling your information outright: the way that they sell those ads is based off of your information. The way that they do so matters, but not as much for this particular conversation: they are still exploiting your data regardless of the precise way that they package it. Yes, you can use their services to get features and abilities for free. Nobody is saying that part is bad. The problem is that they have made it hard/impossible to go anywhere else if you don't want to use them. The "company stores" of yore also made it particularly easy to get the tools and supplies you needed, but it was still an unfair trade. The fact that Google and Facebook make such massive economic profit off of something supposedly so worthless as personal data just doesn't add up.
gravescale 2y ago
If it's a fair trade made between consenting, rational, partners both in full possession of the facts, why are companies so cagey about what information they're gathering from users? If it was a fair trade and users were aware, they surely don't need to be so worried. You wouldn't need to threaten with data protection laws, and you wouldn't have to require consent for information gathering and tracking, users would know exactly what it is worth and give it willingly if they agreed with the value propositions. Or, is it actually that very many people are almost entirely unaware of the information they're providing (leaking) in the "transaction", or are unaware they're even making such a a trade in the first place. A bit like having a small, discreet, densely typed sign saying a shop is using CCTV and by entering you agree to be surveilled, but what you're actually doing is using the cameras to read PINs entered into the card readers.