3 ms·

It's also true. Not every business model is viable, and that's life. I can't run a hitman business. Because that's illegal. Oh well, too bad, so sad. This is w

It's also true. Not every business model is viable, and that's life. I can't run a hitman business. Because that's illegal. Oh well, too bad, so sad. This is what makes the world a somewhat decent place. If we make things that suck ass illegal and then, as a byproduct, a bunch of businesses can no longer make money - then good. That's the correct outcome. This is how a free market works. You want to win customers? Make a good product, have a good model, don't cheat by lying to customers, or doing shit without their consent. We don't want scams, scams are bad. If those go away that's a net benefit for humanity.

tonyhart7 11mo ago
what do you mean illegal??? tell that to Ads advertising business that bringing billions every year, and its legal btw
- array_key_first 11mo ago
  Right, and that sucks major fucking ass. It's bad and literally nobody likes it. If it went away overnight, I would not lose sleep. I don't think I'm alone in that. If you want to run a business that relies on gathering obscene amounts of data on people and then using it in aggregate to commit crimes against humanity, then fine. But at least make them consent to you fucking them up the ass. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
  - tonyhart7 11mo ago
    so you want people cant earn livelihood by your saying????? for some people and I mean some people in this are entire industry that working with directly and indirectly. this is the only way to earn a living for them and you saying this people cant do that???? "If you want to run a business that relies on gathering obscene amounts of data on people and then using it in aggregate to commit crimes against humanity, then fine. But at least make them consent to you fucking them up the ass. I don't think that's too much to ask for." well. you are free to choose not to?????? what we even doing here? life its about choice and you are free to not sign up service that scummy it literally totally difference case that worth another article/post for that
    - array_key_first 11mo ago
      So, so many glaring problems here: 1. Consumers can't just 'not use something' because of network effects, and you know that. Don't play stupid with me. 2. The service is scummy because they lie. That's the scummy part. Sit back and read what I wrote. I'm not saying services CAN'T commit crimes against humanity. They can! I'm saying they must DO IT HONESTLY. If this is about choice, and you want users to choose what they want, then you have to be on my side. It's not optional. IF what you're saying is true, and consumers have the choice "not sign up service that scummy", THEN they must know if the service is scummy. Necessarily! You are literally agreeing with me!
      - tonyhart7 11mo ago
        You are making it like they are doing human crime level hitler or some shit No, the competing solution/alternative its not better if there are better ways to do this, it would be born already
        int_19h 11mo ago
        > if there are better ways to do this, it would be born already That's not how it works in capitalism. If there are more profitable ways to do this, then it would have been adopted. But better is subjective - better for whom? For the users? The businesses don't give a fuck about the users, only about their money.
        mrguyorama 11mo ago
        Which is why shrinkflation always fails right? In a free market, consumers will pick the better option right? The one where they don't pay more for less? Right?
        array_key_first 11mo ago
        > You are making it like they are doing human crime level hitler or some shit I mean, yeah, Facebook directly caused a genocide because of their pursuit of ads. Do with that what you will. But either way, it's like you're pulling every fallacy you can think of out of your ass! Even if it's not a big deal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. That's stupid. And the idea that 'oh well we don't need to think of solutions, because the magical solution fairy would've already done it' is also stupid. How do you think stuff gets done? Who's doing it? Us! The conversation we're having is that! It's the "born already" you're talking about!
  - senordevnyc 11mo ago
    Nobody like it in the same way that nobody likes paying for groceries or gas. Wouldn't it be great if they were free?? Of course it'd be awesome if the world had no ads, but most people prefer free with ads to paid without ads.
    - array_key_first 11mo ago
      Uh, no, not in the same way. You have absolutely zero proof that you NEED to fuck users up the ass to make the service work. Many services worked without the ass fucking. We did it for a very long time. > but most people prefer free with ads to paid without ads. No, you can't actually say this, because part of the deal is that nobody actually knows HOW or WHAT they are giving up for this free service. Things like GPDR or consent, again, do not outlaw the actual thing. Ads are still legal, personalized ads are still legal, tracking is still legal. It just forces you to ask consumers. If what you're saying is true, then GPDR is fantastic!! All the users should click 'accept all cookies', because that's what they actually want right? Unless, wait, you think... maybe that's not what they want? And they're only agreeing to the current situation because they don't know what they're agreeing to? Hmm... what a conundrum!
      - what 11mo ago
        Okay. So would you prefer to pay a subscription for every site you use or pay with your eyeballs by looking at ads?
        Reedyn 11mo ago
        this is a false dichotomy. You don't need to track your users to show ads. Contextual advertising works fine for many sites, especially those with a specific targeted audience (for example a gaming website can show ads for gaming related products).
      - senordevnyc 11mo ago
        Imagine if grocery stores had someone standing at the front asking if you'd like to pay for your groceries or opt-out. Of course most people would opt-out, because that's what's best for them individually. But they probably won't love it when the grocery store closes...

tonyhart7 11mo ago

what do you mean illegal??? tell that to Ads advertising business that bringing billions every year, and its legal btw

array_key_first 11mo ago
Right, and that sucks major fucking ass. It's bad and literally nobody likes it. If it went away overnight, I would not lose sleep. I don't think I'm alone in that. If you want to run a business that relies on gathering obscene amounts of data on people and then using it in aggregate to commit crimes against humanity, then fine. But at least make them consent to you fucking them up the ass. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
- tonyhart7 11mo ago
  so you want people cant earn livelihood by your saying????? for some people and I mean some people in this are entire industry that working with directly and indirectly. this is the only way to earn a living for them and you saying this people cant do that???? "If you want to run a business that relies on gathering obscene amounts of data on people and then using it in aggregate to commit crimes against humanity, then fine. But at least make them consent to you fucking them up the ass. I don't think that's too much to ask for." well. you are free to choose not to?????? what we even doing here? life its about choice and you are free to not sign up service that scummy it literally totally difference case that worth another article/post for that
  - array_key_first 11mo ago
    So, so many glaring problems here: 1. Consumers can't just 'not use something' because of network effects, and you know that. Don't play stupid with me. 2. The service is scummy because they lie. That's the scummy part. Sit back and read what I wrote. I'm not saying services CAN'T commit crimes against humanity. They can! I'm saying they must DO IT HONESTLY. If this is about choice, and you want users to choose what they want, then you have to be on my side. It's not optional. IF what you're saying is true, and consumers have the choice "not sign up service that scummy", THEN they must know if the service is scummy. Necessarily! You are literally agreeing with me!
    - tonyhart7 11mo ago
      You are making it like they are doing human crime level hitler or some shit No, the competing solution/alternative its not better if there are better ways to do this, it would be born already
      - int_19h 11mo ago
        > if there are better ways to do this, it would be born already That's not how it works in capitalism. If there are more profitable ways to do this, then it would have been adopted. But better is subjective - better for whom? For the users? The businesses don't give a fuck about the users, only about their money.
      - mrguyorama 11mo ago
        Which is why shrinkflation always fails right? In a free market, consumers will pick the better option right? The one where they don't pay more for less? Right?
      - array_key_first 11mo ago
        > You are making it like they are doing human crime level hitler or some shit I mean, yeah, Facebook directly caused a genocide because of their pursuit of ads. Do with that what you will. But either way, it's like you're pulling every fallacy you can think of out of your ass! Even if it's not a big deal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. That's stupid. And the idea that 'oh well we don't need to think of solutions, because the magical solution fairy would've already done it' is also stupid. How do you think stuff gets done? Who's doing it? Us! The conversation we're having is that! It's the "born already" you're talking about!
- senordevnyc 11mo ago
  Nobody like it in the same way that nobody likes paying for groceries or gas. Wouldn't it be great if they were free?? Of course it'd be awesome if the world had no ads, but most people prefer free with ads to paid without ads.
  - array_key_first 11mo ago
    Uh, no, not in the same way. You have absolutely zero proof that you NEED to fuck users up the ass to make the service work. Many services worked without the ass fucking. We did it for a very long time. > but most people prefer free with ads to paid without ads. No, you can't actually say this, because part of the deal is that nobody actually knows HOW or WHAT they are giving up for this free service. Things like GPDR or consent, again, do not outlaw the actual thing. Ads are still legal, personalized ads are still legal, tracking is still legal. It just forces you to ask consumers. If what you're saying is true, then GPDR is fantastic!! All the users should click 'accept all cookies', because that's what they actually want right? Unless, wait, you think... maybe that's not what they want? And they're only agreeing to the current situation because they don't know what they're agreeing to? Hmm... what a conundrum!
    - what 11mo ago
      Okay. So would you prefer to pay a subscription for every site you use or pay with your eyeballs by looking at ads?
      - Reedyn 11mo ago
        this is a false dichotomy. You don't need to track your users to show ads. Contextual advertising works fine for many sites, especially those with a specific targeted audience (for example a gaming website can show ads for gaming related products).
    - senordevnyc 11mo ago
      Imagine if grocery stores had someone standing at the front asking if you'd like to pay for your groceries or opt-out. Of course most people would opt-out, because that's what's best for them individually. But they probably won't love it when the grocery store closes...