Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
As one of the privacy zealots on the internet, I'd gladly pay for services if it avoids advertisements. But I should get a choice in who gets my information.
As things are now, I'm not in control of any of it unless I fight tooth and nail to retain it, and even then I can only limit what they have access to. Facebook tracks my browsing habits and builds an advertisement profile based on it even though I explicitly deleted my accounts almost 10 years ago.
And this information isn't just kept by Facebook. They have the right to sell it to anyone, including the government. Who needs a warrant when your local PD can just pay a data broker and get access to your GPS logs? After all, you consented to that website's EULA that said they can sell that data to any other entity.
People who don't care about data privacy don't understand how much you can learn about someone just from 'anonymized metadata'.
If it was a person wanting to know that much about you, you'd call the cops for stalking. But because it's a multimillion dollar company with a profit motive, it's suddenly okay?
That choice is called not using their service.
Exactly.
Some of us know.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_profile
Turns out, that isn't enough.
EDIT
See also: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/
Indirect information is not a choice we have offline, either.
So shadow profiles come from either
Seems like the problem here is information voluntarily given to someone & shared, ie, 2nd-hand information. Unless the information is sensitive (government ID, payment information, medical records, etc), can we reasonably expect society not to pick up information about us from our social network?
We can choose not to directly divulge our information, but even offline we never had serious expectations that others won't disclose nonsensitive information they know about us or seen us do. Unless the information is legally protected offline, we never had a choice to control that offline, so we're not owed that online, either.
That raises a fundamental question to me:
Are companies required to get permission to get data from people?
Because currently, they sure seem to think they need permission, except when it suits the company's interests (IE gathering data from people who explicitly reject their services and choose not to use them).
And while I understand that not everything is private, we have laws against gathering public data about people but only if you're just one person. Stalking is a crime, unless you're Facebook apparently.
That's not why. The reason is nothing you wrote about fits the legal definition of stalking. A typical legal definition
An element of the definition (circumstance) is sorely missing in your claims.
Stalking has less to do with information & more to do with (legal definition of) harassment. Simply gathering public data about someone isn't a crime. Expectations of privacy in public are nonexistent. Your premise is dubious.
The cost to run a server is between $0.50 to $2.00 per month depending on how complex it is. So Imagine you had to pay $2.50-$3.00 per website in a patchwork of subscription based sites.
Every .com or .net site that wasn't selling a product would now require that fee, .gov .edu and .org would likely still be free.
I don't care about my data because I get to use a free internet with at least ads that are relevant to me and adblocker works relatively well
You don't care about your data because you don't realize how valuable it is, and how bad the deal is that in exchange for not being able to control your data, you get to see some cute cat memes.
We're headed to a world where your health insurance company can pay a data broker to get access to data Kroger collects about what you buy when shopping. Imagine your health insurance going up because you buy real butter vs margarine. Or not enough vegetables.
But hey, at least you get to see your friends vacation pictures for free on Facebook. Totally worth it.
Most people don't understand that we are headed for discriminatory pricing where everyone pays the maximum they can bare up to ensure everyone stays in poverty in an endless consumption loop. Shit we kinda are already there.
Think RealPage and rental markets in REIT owned corporate ghettos.
And the normie still got nothing to hide clearly.
States will ban the practice quickly if companies start price discriminating, the only reason insurance companies have gotten away with it is because they have justified reasons if they started using precision with our data it would be quickly outlawed.
The internet has only been allowed to be a free market because we agreed to be the product. Imagine a world where Google isn't free, where you are charged per usage like the old phone plans that cost money per amount of letters typed.
You have a lot of faith in the US government's willingness to solve problems for people vs for companies.
We have a gun violence epidemic because gun manufacturer profits matter more than children's lives. Forgive me if I'm skeptical that congress would do anything other than protect big business. Health insurance lobbyists will make sure of it.
I have faith in the states/city I live in lol. Maryland/DC will ban the practice, probably the while North east VA upwards, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, West coast, Colorado, and New Mexico would stop this, the feds MIGHT but probably not.
The health insurance lobbyists won't hesitate to inject money into a local election for a candidate that agrees to keep things as they are.
But hey, I remember being naive and idealistic once, too.
Have you seen our government lately? That's not fucking happening. Maybe in the furthest left states. But even that is a huge maybe.