4 ms·
On the one hand, it is a clear indication that citizen's wishes are ignored. On the other, US is supposed to be a republic and politicians are supposed to be sm
by A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
On the one hand, it is a clear indication that citizen's wishes are ignored. On the other, US is supposed to be a republic and politicians are supposed to be smarter than to give in to the mob, who will always vote itself whatever it currently wants.
The problem is that while 84% ( I am taking that number at face value for the time being ) say they want stronger privacy laws in aggregate, as individuals they differ on what that actually means. While this is happening, corporations and interests that are opposed to that know exactly what they want and coordinate appropriately.
Privacy needs lobbyists too , I suppose?
I am not sure at what point it breaks. Ellison famously quipped that privacy is long dead anyway.
- latexr 2y ago> On the other, US is supposed to be a republic and politicians are supposed to be smarter than to give in to the mob, who will always vote itself whatever it currently wants. Just the other day I learned of the Sunshine Protection Act. From the first paragraph on Wikipedia¹: > the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent, although several senators stated later that they would have objected if they had known that the bill could pass. Maybe politicians are “supposed to be smarter”, but they’re not. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Protection_Act
- scarface_74 2y agoAnd yet in other countries when Facebook was forced to give users a choice of pay for the service or accept targeted advertising, people chose to keep their free service. The ad tier of services like Hulu makes more than the paid tier.
- mhuffman 2y agoIt seems like the "give users a choice" part is the important part here. Most of use that have almost no social media footprint are still being tracked and targeted with ads.