3 ms·

I think we can debate regulations being productive or not all day and either side of the camp will never agree, however my biggest personal issue is that the go

I think we can debate regulations being productive or not all day and either side of the camp will never agree, however my biggest personal issue is that the government is removing the choice from anyone involved. As an adult you should be able to chose for yourself - if everyone chose no, then nobody would use these services and the companies wouldn’t do it. I think the effort needs to be focused on awareness and education, not restriction. If the average user is fine with their data being sold in exchange for a service, then why not let them? I’m personally not okay with it and I keep my data footprint as low as I can, but I know lots of people who just do not care if they get a service in return, and are fully understanding of what that means.

Sakos 2y ago
Companies circumvent real choice all the time. Regulations prevent them from doing so. There's no equivalency here. EU has repeatedly made legislation that does something or anything to counteract the power these tech companies have over the lives of billions. The EU has an interest in serving the needs of EU citizens. Tech companies do not. Tech companies only care about their bottom line, regardless of the human or financial cost to anybody else. There is no option for individuals to do anything about these companies. That's what we need governments for. The US has largely decided that companies shouldn't be regulated at all (particularly with the recent Supreme Court decisions). This isn't a good thing. It will not benefit the vast majority of US citizens. There is no "choice" citizens can make that will undo the unraveling of government regulations on industry/business, unless it's voting for a political party that one that will reform the Supreme Court and revert their insane decisions, a party that isn't the GOP.
- multimoon 2y ago
  Then it sounds like what you’re saying is there’s a financial market for users like you and I who would rather pay a subscription fee than our data be sold? Or an ad supported tier? The problem with your argument is you’re removing any revenue source the company has. If you won’t pay a subscription, and you block all the ads, and they can’t sell data, how do they make money? Money is required to run the service, whether that leaves a sour taste or not. If you think you have a financially viable model that protects data, then you should start a company on that premise, I’d genuinely love to see someone make it work.
  - Sakos 2y ago
    > Then it sounds like what you’re saying is there’s a financial market for users like you and I who would rather pay a subscription fee than our data be sold? Or an ad supported tier? And the vast majority of users don't deserve privacy? Nah, that's a ridiculous argument to make and I'm not going to waste my time with this line of discussion. You're not making a good faith argument. I'm not playing your stupid games.
    - threatofrain 2y ago
      There's plenty of interpretative room to view the above comment as honest discussion as opposed to dishonesty ("bad faith"). But now you've burned the bridge so hard why do you even bother making an argument? Just to get the last word? One cannot unring a bell.
    - multimoon 2y ago
      I don’t think there’s need for anger, I’m not “playing games”. All I’m doing is pointing out that there has to be a source of revenue to run any given service - and if you remove all the sources of revenue then the service ceases to exist. Right now the only viable sources of revenue at that kind of online service scale is subscriptions, ads, or data collection and sale. If there’s a method I’m not thinking of I’m genuinely curious what the financial model would look like.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - phyzix5761 2y ago
      No one is forcing you to use these services. I care very much about my privacy and only use a handful of services that respect that privacy. Stop giving your money to companies you disagree with and stop forcing your morality on others. Because all that does is set the precedent for someone to force their morality on you even if you disagree with it. That's how we get anti gay, xenophobic, extremists forcing their moral views on others. Let people decide what is right for them.
  - abdullahkhalids 2y ago
themagician 2y ago
It's not (necessarily) about you. When you knowingly agree to use a service that sells your data, that's fine. When you link it to Facebook and then give it access to your contacts and the name, email address, and phone number of every person you know gets sold to a company that then goes and uses that information to send personalized phishing emails and commit fraud that's a lot less fine. At the end of the day its about liability. There are many tech companies that are responsible for harm at both the individual and societal level, and they are not held accountable.
13415 2y ago
> If the average user is fine with their data being sold in exchange for a service, then why not let them? But they are not okay with it. I understand why Corporations like to insinuate that people who click OK to twenty pages of legalese in an EULA really are okay with whatever clauses in it, but in reality this practice is an abuse of contract law and exploiting asymmetric power relations. In theory, a potential customer could print EULAs out, suggest changes, and send back the revised contract for approval or further negotiation. In practice, nobody ever does that and corporations would freak out if it happened on a large scale. The problem does not just occur with new big tech. Banks have been doing the same for decades. I recently put some money on a savings account and was greeted with pages and pages of fine print that literally only a lawyer can understand. Normally, nobody in their right mind would accept this. However, the bank serves as a utility, changing banks is very difficult where I live and they all have the same kind of contracts in their favor. There is no alternative. The same is true for social networks and other big tech. It's not really a free choice for a small business owner to have a Facebook account or for a self-published author to put their books on Amazon, for instance. That's why strong regulations, good customer protection and privacy laws are needed.

Sakos 2y ago

Companies circumvent real choice all the time. Regulations prevent them from doing so. There's no equivalency here. EU has repeatedly made legislation that does something or anything to counteract the power these tech companies have over the lives of billions. The EU has an interest in serving the needs of EU citizens. Tech companies do not. Tech companies only care about their bottom line, regardless of the human or financial cost to anybody else. There is no option for individuals to do anything about these companies. That's what we need governments for. The US has largely decided that companies shouldn't be regulated at all (particularly with the recent Supreme Court decisions). This isn't a good thing. It will not benefit the vast majority of US citizens. There is no "choice" citizens can make that will undo the unraveling of government regulations on industry/business, unless it's voting for a political party that one that will reform the Supreme Court and revert their insane decisions, a party that isn't the GOP.

multimoon 2y ago
Then it sounds like what you’re saying is there’s a financial market for users like you and I who would rather pay a subscription fee than our data be sold? Or an ad supported tier? The problem with your argument is you’re removing any revenue source the company has. If you won’t pay a subscription, and you block all the ads, and they can’t sell data, how do they make money? Money is required to run the service, whether that leaves a sour taste or not. If you think you have a financially viable model that protects data, then you should start a company on that premise, I’d genuinely love to see someone make it work.
- Sakos 2y ago
  > Then it sounds like what you’re saying is there’s a financial market for users like you and I who would rather pay a subscription fee than our data be sold? Or an ad supported tier? And the vast majority of users don't deserve privacy? Nah, that's a ridiculous argument to make and I'm not going to waste my time with this line of discussion. You're not making a good faith argument. I'm not playing your stupid games.
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    There's plenty of interpretative room to view the above comment as honest discussion as opposed to dishonesty ("bad faith"). But now you've burned the bridge so hard why do you even bother making an argument? Just to get the last word? One cannot unring a bell.
  - multimoon 2y ago
    I don’t think there’s need for anger, I’m not “playing games”. All I’m doing is pointing out that there has to be a source of revenue to run any given service - and if you remove all the sources of revenue then the service ceases to exist. Right now the only viable sources of revenue at that kind of online service scale is subscriptions, ads, or data collection and sale. If there’s a method I’m not thinking of I’m genuinely curious what the financial model would look like.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - phyzix5761 2y ago
    No one is forcing you to use these services. I care very much about my privacy and only use a handful of services that respect that privacy. Stop giving your money to companies you disagree with and stop forcing your morality on others. Because all that does is set the precedent for someone to force their morality on you even if you disagree with it. That's how we get anti gay, xenophobic, extremists forcing their moral views on others. Let people decide what is right for them.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago

themagician 2y ago

It's not (necessarily) about you. When you knowingly agree to use a service that sells your data, that's fine. When you link it to Facebook and then give it access to your contacts and the name, email address, and phone number of every person you know gets sold to a company that then goes and uses that information to send personalized phishing emails and commit fraud that's a lot less fine. At the end of the day its about liability. There are many tech companies that are responsible for harm at both the individual and societal level, and they are not held accountable.

13415 2y ago

> If the average user is fine with their data being sold in exchange for a service, then why not let them? But they are not okay with it. I understand why Corporations like to insinuate that people who click OK to twenty pages of legalese in an EULA really are okay with whatever clauses in it, but in reality this practice is an abuse of contract law and exploiting asymmetric power relations. In theory, a potential customer could print EULAs out, suggest changes, and send back the revised contract for approval or further negotiation. In practice, nobody ever does that and corporations would freak out if it happened on a large scale. The problem does not just occur with new big tech. Banks have been doing the same for decades. I recently put some money on a savings account and was greeted with pages and pages of fine print that literally only a lawyer can understand. Normally, nobody in their right mind would accept this. However, the bank serves as a utility, changing banks is very difficult where I live and they all have the same kind of contracts in their favor. There is no alternative. The same is true for social networks and other big tech. It's not really a free choice for a small business owner to have a Facebook account or for a self-published author to put their books on Amazon, for instance. That's why strong regulations, good customer protection and privacy laws are needed.