2 ms·
I believe you're correct. At the same time, we allowed the problem of economic harm to grow worse by not dealing decisively with the problem of online privacy
by bilbo0s 2y ago
I believe you're correct.
At the same time, we allowed the problem of economic harm to grow worse by not dealing decisively with the problem of online privacy from the outset. For this same reason, an argument could be made that ripping the bandaid off now would be less painful than in the future. (And I'm not blind to the amount of pain this would cause. I realize that what I'm advocating would decimate our own industry.)
Then on the other hand there's the argument, that has apparently found the most resonance, that letting online privacy whither on the vine is the logical way to go. Good or bad, these privacy invasions are funding a sizeable chunk of the economy. I can see people thinking it's nonsensical to get rid of 10% of the nation's jobs. Especially when it's the exact 10% of jobs likely to pay the most.
I'm a privacy advocate, so I fall on the "burn it down" side. But I do understand the other side of the argument. I just think right now, at about 10-12% of the economy, decimation of the tech industry is survivable. If we wait, it could be 20-30% of the economy, at that point, pro-privacy actions would effectively be completely off the table.
- soco 2y agoSo you think over 10% of the economy is working on the advertisement industry? Isn't that number at least a little bit hyped up? I also cannot imagine how we, lacking targeted advertising, would eat less or buy less.