4 ms·
A lot of value is left on the table because informed people don't give up data. If simple regulation existed - say, "no one can use data for any purpose the us
by cadamsdotcom 18d ago
A lot of value is left on the table because informed people don't give up data.
If simple regulation existed - say, "no one can use data for any purpose the user did not explicitly consent to, including product improvements AND including on-selling", that suddenly turns giving up data into a legally-binding, two-party transaction.
There'd be an explosion of really cool uses of data as a result of the trust that'd engender.
But today's status quo is lucrative - so here we stay.
- Rygian 17d agoAny "legally-binding, two-party transaction" between an individual and a large corporate conglomerate is a lost battle (or more precisely, a not-even-fought battle) for the vast majority of individuals. 80% of buyers of anything simply smash "Accept" (and watch through ads/spam) until their device shows the content they wanted to access. (Statistic is made up, but I think it's hard to refute.) Do you call that "explicit consent"?
- cadamsdotcom 17d agoI'm talking of a world in which laws are strong and well written enough that people don't need to worry; they can mash that Accept button and not be getting screwed over. We agree that most peopke aren't equipped to provide informed consent and "buyer beware" won't work. For these the government steps in - car & plane safety for example.
- mitxela 17d agoHas anyone tried arguing they didn't actually consent even though they clicked accept?