4 ms·

It's worth pointing out that this is a pro-corporate attack by the US/california government against citizens who have their data in 23andme. This is one more it

It's worth pointing out that this is a pro-corporate attack by the US/california government against citizens who have their data in 23andme. This is one more item of clear evidence that it is not the citizens government, but corporations government. This is also why democrats lose. They can't even wrangle corporate power in their own stronghold states. Politicians have the responsibility of creating legislation to protect citizens, but by abandoning that responsibility and creating an "opt-out" system, those without knowledge or who aren't paying active attention lose, and companies win. The company loses almost nothing if a handful of people opt out, and only a handful of people at most will opt out, so corporations win, the politicians continue to have the support of corporations so they win, and citizens who have things being done with their data, that they absolutely would not consent to, lose. *edit: If you did 23andMe for health information or ancestry purposes, would you consent to that data being sold to an insurance company who might raise your rates, or in a crazy world, to a background check company that would inform a potential employer of any medical conditions that might be relevant to your stability as a worker? Of course not. You would absolutely not consent to that. This policy of warning people to delete their data instead of stopping action that no informed citizen would consent to not only doesn't scale, but it is an abandonment of responsibility in order to retain corporate support (such as donations to run a campaign).

hhh 2y ago
What?
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  Who should stop a company from doing things that are unethical, in this case selling genetic data to companies to use for their own ends, rather than to use data to benefit customers. The attorney general for a state as well as the legislative body passing laws that help the AG do their job has a responsibility to prevent this. So this person in a position of power, who should be stopping a blatant abuse of people's data, has abandoned that responsibility and instead told every individual, in a public statement that would be very easy to miss, to prevent the abuse of data themselves. This style of handling data is a policy like recycling, or telling people to turn off their lights to protect the planet. It distributes responsibility to individuals, for a problem that can only be meaningfully addressed through regulation.
  - derektank 2y ago
    You said it yourself, the AG can only enforce laws that the legislature and governor pass. Calling the AG's statement a corporate attack seems needlessly inflammatory when he doesn't have the authority to change the law himself.
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      AG exists as part of a system. An AG should be working with a legislative body to give the AG the tools the AG office needs to do their job. This is abandonment of responsibility because challenging corporate power results in reduced corporate backing. This is corporate <-> political alignment against citizens manifested.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        General consumer protection is not the AG's job. You're demanding action out of the wrong person.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
toomuchtodo 2y ago
The notice is pro consumer, informing citizens of their rights to delete their data from a private company database.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  It's not. It is a pro-consumer Trojan horse. It appears to be pro-consumer, but the vast majority of 23andMe customers will be harmed by the AG abandoning their responsibility to protect the public through direct action against 23andMe. It's not even your own data. If family members used 23andMe and don't see this notice, then your genetic data is still part of 23andMe whether you like it or not.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    Why would I want the government forcing companies to delete my own data? Shouldn’t I be able to choose myself?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Henchman21 2y ago
    Perhaps said AG has come to the conclusion that litigation would be fruitless and that warning the public has the most upside for the public? Also it seems you’ve made this political because Democrats and California exist I guess? They are Big Scary Monsters for conservatives I suppose? I don’t really get it and the point you’re attempting to make seems based on a misreading.
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      I vote democrat. I really do, but I am upset with democrats because they aren't crafting a world we want to live in and they will take any excuse they can to do nothing or something close to nothing instead of actually doing something. One of the reasons democrat don't get voted for is because they are incapable of governance even in their own strongholds because they engage in the conflict of interest of taking corporate donations. When a politician acts against a citizen, there is no consequence. When a politician acts against a corporation, donations are reduced or transferred to their opponents. Before a general election is a primary, and before a primary is fundraising. During fundraising, which acts as a filter for candidates, and is therefore a form of election, money votes first, which is why we have a country that feels like politicians represent corporations (they do, corporations vote first by voting with money), rather than people.
gosub100 2y ago
> They can't even wrangle corporate power in their own stronghold states. Or even darker: they never represented the people (demos) in the first place?
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  They don't and they can't as long as corporate backing is their major source of funding. Not to say republicans represent people either, republicans unapologetically back unchecked corporate power. Democrats try to serve two masters.
  - derektank 2y ago
    Individual contributions, both large and small, are together by far the largest source of funding for campaign spending at the federal level. It's certainly possible that this is different at the level of the California state legislature but I see no reason to think it is without evidence to the contrary. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/where-the-money-came-from https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/where-the-mon...
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      Here is a Harvard law professor and tech darling (of creative commons), Lawrence Lessig, rebutting your overall point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g Summary: It feels like we have a government that governs on behalf of those with money because those with money vote first in the fundraising "election" that happens even before a primary election. More money is more votes in the "election" that mattes the most. Those with money get to filter candidates first. edit: Just because money comes from an individual and not directly from a corporation doesn't mean it isn't a pro-corporate/"corporate" contribution.
Glyptodon 2y ago
I'm not sure I know enough to about CA AG's options to strongly agree or disagree with your point, but I think the way you've written about it is going to be confusing/misunderstood by the average person just reading through comments.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  > CA AG's options That's a framing that contains its own defeat. Republicans and corporations don't cage themselves by their options, they give themselves options. They work towards and achieve their goals despite "resistance." A government that doesn't function de-legitimizes itself.
  - derektank 2y ago
    A government that doesn't adhere to a consistent framework of rules and laws ultimately devolves into some fashion of personalist dictatorship. Now, laws should not be set in stone and governance can be made more permissive to afford a lot of personal discretion to elected leaders, and maybe they should be, but ignoring the legal constraints that exist today is basically arguing that might makes right.

hhh 2y ago

What?

hayst4ck 2y ago
Who should stop a company from doing things that are unethical, in this case selling genetic data to companies to use for their own ends, rather than to use data to benefit customers. The attorney general for a state as well as the legislative body passing laws that help the AG do their job has a responsibility to prevent this. So this person in a position of power, who should be stopping a blatant abuse of people's data, has abandoned that responsibility and instead told every individual, in a public statement that would be very easy to miss, to prevent the abuse of data themselves. This style of handling data is a policy like recycling, or telling people to turn off their lights to protect the planet. It distributes responsibility to individuals, for a problem that can only be meaningfully addressed through regulation.
- derektank 2y ago
  You said it yourself, the AG can only enforce laws that the legislature and governor pass. Calling the AG's statement a corporate attack seems needlessly inflammatory when he doesn't have the authority to change the law himself.
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    AG exists as part of a system. An AG should be working with a legislative body to give the AG the tools the AG office needs to do their job. This is abandonment of responsibility because challenging corporate power results in reduced corporate backing. This is corporate <-> political alignment against citizens manifested.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      General consumer protection is not the AG's job. You're demanding action out of the wrong person.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

toomuchtodo 2y ago

The notice is pro consumer, informing citizens of their rights to delete their data from a private company database.

hayst4ck 2y ago
It's not. It is a pro-consumer Trojan horse. It appears to be pro-consumer, but the vast majority of 23andMe customers will be harmed by the AG abandoning their responsibility to protect the public through direct action against 23andMe. It's not even your own data. If family members used 23andMe and don't see this notice, then your genetic data is still part of 23andMe whether you like it or not.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  Why would I want the government forcing companies to delete my own data? Shouldn’t I be able to choose myself?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Henchman21 2y ago
  Perhaps said AG has come to the conclusion that litigation would be fruitless and that warning the public has the most upside for the public? Also it seems you’ve made this political because Democrats and California exist I guess? They are Big Scary Monsters for conservatives I suppose? I don’t really get it and the point you’re attempting to make seems based on a misreading.
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    I vote democrat. I really do, but I am upset with democrats because they aren't crafting a world we want to live in and they will take any excuse they can to do nothing or something close to nothing instead of actually doing something. One of the reasons democrat don't get voted for is because they are incapable of governance even in their own strongholds because they engage in the conflict of interest of taking corporate donations. When a politician acts against a citizen, there is no consequence. When a politician acts against a corporation, donations are reduced or transferred to their opponents. Before a general election is a primary, and before a primary is fundraising. During fundraising, which acts as a filter for candidates, and is therefore a form of election, money votes first, which is why we have a country that feels like politicians represent corporations (they do, corporations vote first by voting with money), rather than people.

gosub100 2y ago

> They can't even wrangle corporate power in their own stronghold states. Or even darker: they never represented the people (demos) in the first place?

hayst4ck 2y ago
They don't and they can't as long as corporate backing is their major source of funding. Not to say republicans represent people either, republicans unapologetically back unchecked corporate power. Democrats try to serve two masters.
- derektank 2y ago
  Individual contributions, both large and small, are together by far the largest source of funding for campaign spending at the federal level. It's certainly possible that this is different at the level of the California state legislature but I see no reason to think it is without evidence to the contrary. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/where-the-money-came-from https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/where-the-mon...
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    Here is a Harvard law professor and tech darling (of creative commons), Lawrence Lessig, rebutting your overall point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g Summary: It feels like we have a government that governs on behalf of those with money because those with money vote first in the fundraising "election" that happens even before a primary election. More money is more votes in the "election" that mattes the most. Those with money get to filter candidates first. edit: Just because money comes from an individual and not directly from a corporation doesn't mean it isn't a pro-corporate/"corporate" contribution.

Glyptodon 2y ago

I'm not sure I know enough to about CA AG's options to strongly agree or disagree with your point, but I think the way you've written about it is going to be confusing/misunderstood by the average person just reading through comments.

hayst4ck 2y ago
> CA AG's options That's a framing that contains its own defeat. Republicans and corporations don't cage themselves by their options, they give themselves options. They work towards and achieve their goals despite "resistance." A government that doesn't function de-legitimizes itself.
- derektank 2y ago
  A government that doesn't adhere to a consistent framework of rules and laws ultimately devolves into some fashion of personalist dictatorship. Now, laws should not be set in stone and governance can be made more permissive to afford a lot of personal discretion to elected leaders, and maybe they should be, but ignoring the legal constraints that exist today is basically arguing that might makes right.