4 ms·
No, those are different things. Tracking me around the Internet is fine though, I don't mind and it has never harmed anyone. If you show me an office full of d
by mgraczyk 2y ago
No, those are different things.
Tracking me around the Internet is fine though, I don't mind and it has never harmed anyone.
If you show me an office full of distractions and say, "would you like to work here? It comes with distractions" then of course that's fine (I would say no). But in fact most people prefer the tradeoffs that come with the distractions
- gambiting 2y ago>> Tracking me around the Internet is fine though, I don't mind and it has never harmed anyone So if you had someone follow you around in your day to day life writing down your every activity, then sold the log of your comings and goings to hundreds of companies for cash - that wouldn't be a "harm" by your definition then, would it? Because that's effectively what's happening on the internet, but because people don't see immediate negative impact on their lives they don't see it as "harm".
- mgraczyk 2y agoNo it's not what's happening. The sites I visit and the sort of information that is used for ads isn't sensitive. I'd happily share it Also, most people wouldn't actually be harmed by what you're describing. It just wouldn't be super valuable data (we already know where you shop because the store and credit card will sell that information)
- gambiting 2y agoI just think you and me have a different definition of harm.
- mgraczyk 2y agoHarm is when something bad happens to someone, and the someone is aware of it
- gambiting 2y agoSo like I said, you and I have very different definition. Using yours, you cannot harm someone who is in come or too young to understand what is happening to them. Similarily, if my personal information is being traded online for money a harm is being done to me, even if I'm not aware of these transactions taking place. I just don't expect we'll agree on this.
- mgraczyk 2y agoThat's not what I said, you can harm somebody who is too young to understand. I'm claiming that nothing bad happens to you from information being traded about you, under whatever definition of "bad" you prefer
- gambiting 2y ago>>when something bad happens to someone, and the someone is aware of it Well I mean that's pretty straightforward, is it not? Someone who is in a coma is not aware of what's happening to them = ergo, no harm is being done, no? >>I'm claiming that nothing bad happens to you from information being traded about you Ok let me follow this for couple more seconds then - any information? Or only specific kinds? Like if I take explicit pictures of my partner and put them on the internet(or sell them, to tick the "trading" box), but she _never_ finds out and it has zero impact on her life - was there harm being done? >>"bad" you prefer It's not a definiton of bad but a definition of harm we're differing on. You said no one was ever harmed by online tracking - I disagree on that point.
- amelius 2y agoEven if you use a different definition you can acknowledge that someone else has a different view, and your original "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument does not hold for that person. Internet ads can in theory be turned on or off per user, it's no rocket science, so you could opt-in and everybody could be happy.
- gambiting 2y ago