• ufra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 years ago

    there have been a couple nyt pro-privacy opinion pieces in the recent past. and I don’t mind it being published there as opinion (as opposed to nyt staff calling out these practices hypocritically), basically because they are reaching those who are not already converted.

    for the same reason, a boiled down version of the stakes is relatively ok, but agree it would be better to include the full spectrum.

    • verassol@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      oh, i don’t mind it being here for discussion at all, it just seems so disingenuous to me, because it raises issues but then ends up protecting the worst intentions/agents. so this reaching and its effects are so dubious… i mean, who would “opt in” to having their data freely added to a company or government database for whatever purpose??

      • ufra@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        See what you mean in terms of protecting the worst offenders … sort of a trade-off of awareness vs integrity.

        who would opt-in? there seems to be quite a few who claim to like personalized ads and there are probably some small business owners who run fb campaigns who would drink the zucker coolaid (same way many americans oppose universal healthcare and higher taxes on uber rich). but yeah, most real people would probably not agree to that, especially the government db as you mentioned.