5 ms·

I almost feel like you are saying that forcibly exfiltrating someone from their land, packing them into a ship where ~15-30% die before even getting the "privil

I almost feel like you are saying that forcibly exfiltrating someone from their land, packing them into a ship where ~15-30% die before even getting the "privilege" of being sold onto bondage[0] and serve the rest of their lives as property is remotely comparable to a person using gmail for free but retaining any right for such a company to profit from that data(which you freely give them)? > Morality has to be talked about. Logic has to be talked about. Your privacy and attention are your own imperative and outsourcing that is a fatal mistake. You will see adverts on a few trashcans but that is the price you pay for living in society. The choice is yours whether you want to sell your information to companies, you provide it, you have agency, stop. [0]http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=446 http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&p...

Dylan16807 11y ago
You're going a bit far there in protest of an analogy. Even someone who supports slavery would likely be against kidnapping and mistreatment. But why are you suddenly talking about corporate data use? Advertising happens with or without that data. There's no real opting out of ads.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  > Even someone who supports slavery would likely be against kidnapping and mistreatment. I mean, they didn't just show up one day. But yeah, I just met hyperbole with hyperbole. > But why are you suddenly talking about corporate data use? Advertising happens with or without that data. I think you can opt out of a lot of ads. I don't watch television often and as stated have a large amount of blocking software installed. I don't read magazines and have limited exposure to billboards as I live in a rural areas. Data is the scary bit and it was mentioned in the article. Selling user data is morally ambiguous. Gun to my head, I come down on the side that it is probably wrong. Seeing an ad briefly while you steal a taylor swift song off youtube is different than the permanence of someone owning a silo of your personal intimate data. Also, this data is used to create a profile of you which (outside of the 1984 scenario) is used to sell you adverts. This is pretty shitty. Once again, I try to maintain my own privacy on the internet and try to safeguard my data as much as possible and while I think it is a shitty practice, I think people should be responsible for themselves.

Dylan16807 11y ago

You're going a bit far there in protest of an analogy. Even someone who supports slavery would likely be against kidnapping and mistreatment. But why are you suddenly talking about corporate data use? Advertising happens with or without that data. There's no real opting out of ads.

vonklaus 11y ago
> Even someone who supports slavery would likely be against kidnapping and mistreatment. I mean, they didn't just show up one day. But yeah, I just met hyperbole with hyperbole. > But why are you suddenly talking about corporate data use? Advertising happens with or without that data. I think you can opt out of a lot of ads. I don't watch television often and as stated have a large amount of blocking software installed. I don't read magazines and have limited exposure to billboards as I live in a rural areas. Data is the scary bit and it was mentioned in the article. Selling user data is morally ambiguous. Gun to my head, I come down on the side that it is probably wrong. Seeing an ad briefly while you steal a taylor swift song off youtube is different than the permanence of someone owning a silo of your personal intimate data. Also, this data is used to create a profile of you which (outside of the 1984 scenario) is used to sell you adverts. This is pretty shitty. Once again, I try to maintain my own privacy on the internet and try to safeguard my data as much as possible and while I think it is a shitty practice, I think people should be responsible for themselves.