4 ms·
A similar argument was tried with 'we sell all users data because otherwise we would not be able to run the service, thus we have a legitimate interest.' It did
by tpxl 2y ago
A similar argument was tried with 'we sell all users data because otherwise we would not be able to run the service, thus we have a legitimate interest.' It did not fly there either.
A service does not have a right to exist. The user has a right to privacy. The users right to privacy trumps the services want to exist. Not to mention that, yeah, there are ways to get similar or better blocking for free, if you have some technical chops at least. I wouldn't fault a small blog for using googles captcha (although the need is questionable), but any company with at least a few employees should be able to figure this out at a relatively trivial cost.
- Aerroon 2y ago>The users right to privacy trumps the services want to exist The user can simply choose not to use the service?
- s1mplicissimus 2y agoData hoarding doesn't just hurt the individual, it's bad for everyone. The data-selling model will always have a strict competitive advantage against the good actors and so you as the user will end up with no options other than allowing that "legitimate" interest or not being able to access such a service. This has slight "people peeing in the community pool" vibes. Sure it may be "easier" for the individual doing it, but long term everyone just ends up with an unusable pool.
- rustc 2y ago> there are ways to get similar or better blocking for free How can you get better blocking for free?