this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
1 points (50.9% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

7593 readers
95 users here now

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rooki@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
admiralpatrick@lemmy.world
lemann@lemmy.world
ptz@dubvee.org
1
There is nothing wrong with websites, browsers and search engines using our data to make money. (lemmy.world)
submitted 14 hours ago by Sackeshi@lemmy.world to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Data privacy is all the rage and people want to have an internet where companies need permission to sell your data and where you can use the FREE service without letting them tell advertisers what you actually like.

There are only 2 possible models for the internet

  1. A free internet where websites, browsers and search engines make money by selling your data to companies who want to sell their products to users.

  2. A subscription based internet where you companies don't use your data but charge a fee to use a specific website, browser or search engine.

I can guarantee that all these people complaining about "muh privacy" would not like having a paywall restricted internet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 7 hours ago

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.

That's not why. The reason is nothing you wrote about fits the legal definition of stalking. A typical legal definition

A person commits the crime of stalking when the person either:

  • engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another person, including following the person without proper authority, under circumstances which demonstrate either an intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person; or
  • engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly communicates to another person under circumstances which demonstrate or communicate either an intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person.

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.