> Free exchange of information is being able to access a textbook at the library, not a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can s

> Free exchange of information is being able to access a textbook at the library, not a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder to put you under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job or send you more ads. Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint This sort of language is unproductive and causes further division. It's just buzzwords hoping to evoke a certain emotion in the reader. I'm being genuine when I say the following: > corporate behemoth Why is this bad? (Steelman: it isn't bad by itself, but it makes the other things worse.) > vacuuming Evokes a certain image, but it is not true. It is copied. > personal information True, but note that it is public in this case. Why is this bad? What's so special about personal information (I'm interpreting this as PII specifically)? (Steelman: it can be used to track you; see "under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job") > sell them to the highest bidder Why is this bad? (Steelman: it feels unfair, to have contributed something without compensation; Counterpoint: access to LinkedIn itself is your compensation, such fairness is a subjective feeling, compensation is for example not needed if you reuse GPL code in a commercial context) > under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job Is this true? If this is true, I can see why LinkedIn AI would be bad, but only for this specifically. If this becomes false, then it's no longer bad. I doubt it is true, however, since this is not generative AI, which they're likely focusing on. > send you more ads This has nothing to do with generative AI, which I assume we're talking about. > Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint Not a useful statement.