Just wanted to raise an issue Ive been thinking about for a while. >you use the internet >you use social media/big tech sites >big tech collects your data >big tech sells your collected data to advertisers and other companies >big tech makes billions if not trillions a year >they make all that money off YOUR data >we dont see a thin dime of any of the money >"OY VEY BUT YOU SIGNED AN AGREEMENT SAYING WE COULD COLLECT DATA!" >yes but we never signed an agreement stating that we WOULDNT be compensated for it If you want to get all super technical about it, just like jews love to do in courts and debates, they NEVER state in the agreement that we are not privy to any of the money or royalties they make off OUR PRIVATE data.
So my question is this Jow Forums: If big tech claims it is allowed to sell our data for profit, would that not be a form of slavery for its users? Especially when we are not allowed to have any of the massive amounts of money they make annually from us, nor have any say in what data they actually collect?
Slavery or not, you still agreed to it. Probably without even skimming said agreement. Slavery is and always has been a choice. The African slaves imported to America could have chosen to rebel and fight to the last man, instead they chose what was easier and more comfortable.
Benjamin Foster
>swedecuck arguing in defense of his masters Pottery. I actually have read them, and thats why I make this thread. >y-you agreed to it its your fault Hey there Jack, still promoting anti-white rhetoric and breaking anti-trust laws? You do realize if some rich fucker wanted to hose down these companies using my OP argument, they would get rekt in court? Why would a bunch of companies who claim to be the fucking arbiter of oppressed people everywhere, allow the same people to slip into a form of digital slavery?
Generally the idea is that you are agreeing to give up your data in exchange for x service
Whether or not it's fair is irrelevant, people dont seem to give a shit and it doesnt technically cost them anything. Since there is no harm it's hard to argue such a contract is unconscionable, especially since most people would still do it even if they knew how much they are being profited off of
Moreover the data scraping tool and the customer list in aggregate makes the money, not any particular individual. One person cannot assert the company is making bank off of them
Aiden Wilson
It's a complex question, but I think trying to draw a parallel with slavery is a mistake. Sitting on our asses, looking up shit and using services for convenience or utility is not the same as doing in-escapable back breaking labor for virtually nothing. When dealing with big tech(let's use Google as an example) their monopoly is so vast that its woven into the very fabric of the surface web. I honestly never had much of an issue with tech companies selling data, but hiding it in walls of ToS is just dishonest. We're at a crossroads where the most obvious routes lead to a bad ending. We have one path that leads us to more regulations in the private sector, which can only ever end badly The other path is continue to let companies like Google solidify their absolute power.
For this issue, they have every right to collect and sell our data. A common sense solution would be too outline and make the information they collect and sell known to you and accessible without all the cloak and daggers, but then again..the slippery slope is real.
it goes way beyond that, but you're probably a millennial/genz weeb so i'll cut you some slack
Kayden Kelly
Checked. Youre right, slavery is kind of a bad comparison. Perhaps feudalism instead? We are just the poor serfs, tending the fields of the ultra-powerful Tech Lords, who get rich off our labor, whilst sitting around and doing nothing all day. >one person cannot assert the company is making bank off of them Senpai, thats literally exactly what is happening though. What if it was brought to class action tier?
And another question to all, why doesnt congress just break up the tech giants, declare all forms of datamining and data-based advertisement a Class 1 Federal Felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison? Why cant we go back to the days of >hey your product is pretty cool/good lemme buy some and support your business and spread word to my family and friends who would possibly use your services to >OY VEY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY LOOK AT THIS AD LOOK AT THAT AD OY VEY OY VEY CLICK HERE FOR ANOTHER MEANINGLESS PRODUCT
>it goes way beyond that How far beyond? Can I get a QRD?
Jaxson King
advertising is the best way for any company to monetize and we'll just leave it at that
Parker Nelson
> "Why cant we go back to the days of"
Because that is progress user. Whatever scary, complex, modern age problems have arisen are far outweighed by the benefits of having these services. When faced with adversity you must adapt and overcome, not retreat to the past. I could prattle on all day about the unfortunate consequences of our information age, but I'll be here forever, just letting you know that I realize there are critical issues that need to be resolved and not enough soloutions to solve them.
>Why doesn't congress just break up the tech giants Totalitarianism is not the answer. One thing history teaches us well is what not to do.
>datamining and data-based advertisement a Class 1 Federal Felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison
Advertising is a product of consumerism. If you want to make it a federal offense, you might as well just hop on the commie train and renounce Capitalism
I do agree there needs to be regulations to some extent though.
If you sign into social media it is 100% your choice to allow them to collect data. The one that gets me is that they collect data off of your phone without permission. There isn't much choice in that other than switching your mobile OS. Has anyone used LineageOS? Is it workable or is it a meme?
Daniel Hernandez
>yes but we never signed an agreement stating that we WOULDNT be compensated for it You literally did, it was part of user agreement, which obviously you haven't read at all. Otherwise somebody smart enough to read it would sue after using their service for years, deliberately giving all the info they want to get to get maximum amount of money in said lawsuit.
The problem isn't with the contract or even the practice but the potential this data provides. If I could be certain that this will be only used to for example - give me youtube recommendations that fit my interest more or even ads fit to my needs(I use adblock for god knows how long so I don't see much of those) then it's fine, but the problem is that I just know that if I'll get into let's say politics some asshole will start digging my browser history, which he got access to thanks to the fact that some NGO he works for has some special relationship with whoever collected my cookies just once, digging out anything even remotely controversial, criminal or embarrassing therefore burying me. It's the most powerful character assassination tool ever devised.
Liam Morgan
>muh money My rights dont end where billionaires bankrolls begin, and if they do then I want a fucking cut. Im not trying to bring us back to the dark ages or anything, my main point is that why are these faggots allowed to use us as a money farm, and we arent allowed any piece of it. >totalitarianism is not the answer Agreed. >capitalism I am far from commie, I just dont think that just because some ultra rich faggots want to be even more rich, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do it. If thats what capitalism is, then you could say the nigger robbing the liquor store for money and booze is a true blue capitalist. Totally agree, Im referring more to joogle and crapple and their tech, which is the umbrella covering all of the apps and services and whatnot. I have had my phone show me ads for things me and a few friends were talking about just earlier that same day. If that is not an invasion of privacy then I dont know what the fuck is.
>the problem is that I just know that if I'll get into let's say politics some asshole will start digging my browser history, which he got access to thanks to the fact that some NGO he works for has some special relationship with whoever collected my cookies just once, digging out anything even remotely controversial, criminal or embarrassing therefore burying me.
This. Data science needs to be approached like a bank. Ok sure, they're investing with my money. At-least I know for the most part it's safe. This is where laws can be expanded on.
>go to facecrook data policy >ctrl+F "compensation" Nothing. >ctrl+F "payment" Nothing related to this discussion. Even if it did say that, its still wrong ethically. If you say it covers that, by all means post a screenshot. >insulting my intelligence Lol I have an IQ of over 150, try again. Btw, I have a joke for you polfuck. >how do you get a one armed pollack out of a tree? You wave at him.
>why are these faggots allowed to use us as a money farm
Because they're providing you with a free service? You're not forced to use any of these products. Data science is very complex, for the most part these companies are just giving away mundane information, age, ethnicity, location, interest's as these things tend to help formulate generic group standards for targeted advertising. It's when they're making money on sensitive information the problems occur.
Benjamin Barnes
I dont get it
Jose Butler
Then sue and win crapload of money. I am certain no lawyer was consulted when writing jewbook ToS so just consult yours and you won't only make yourself rich but also famous.
Asher Miller
>because theyre providing you with a free service True, cant deny that. Theres just something more to it though. The fact that ads will pop up on your phone for things you were just talking about goes to show that they are collecting a lot more than "mundane" information. Its akin to having a company man or government agent standing right next to you, recording everything you say and do 24/7/365, which is pretty fucking scary when you think about it. And on top of all of that, there is literally NO WAY you can shut that function off, even if you want to.
Hmm hmm hmm. You think they would go pro-Bono on a case like that?
Matthew Lee
The comic? I could be mistaken, but I think he was poking fun at the SJW's inability to think logically. That no one gives a fuck about the inclusiveness past non-nigger tier standards of civility and courtesy. Or I guess it could also be a jab at diversity quotas in STEM. A Mixture of the two perhaps?
>that's exactly what's happening No it isnt, companies are not making tons off one person, they are making money off the aggregate data >what if a brought a class action Class action is retarded, just money for lawyers. It also wont change the law for the reasons I listed
Zachary Hernandez
Because the only people that have the money to sue kikebook are generally profiting from the same ToS bullshit. The Jews really fucked up the justice system here.
Tyler King
Theres nothing to sue over retard
Not liking something isnt a cause of action
Aaron Wood
Stop using social media.
Hunter Anderson
Last I checked, slavery is illegal. Have you even read the thread?
Juan Gonzalez
I read that Google mini story too! Interesting stuff. I guess it depends on how they process and use that information to tailor ads for you. Of course they have sensitive information about you, you gave it to them willingly. Who they give it to is the main concern. Try not to conflate the two, they could just as easily be matching your data and recommending advertisers on an automated system where the only data that gets sent is the specifics.
For example, I search gramophones on Facebook, they record that data and put relevant advertisements on the side bar.
There's absolutely no damn way I'm going to justify them recording live conversations and texts to advertise though. The very rare cases where they have been caught doing it, have been blamed on malfunctions...a likely story.
>Its akin to having a company man or government agent standing right next to you
Unfortunately this is the reality we live in, with or without big tech. They don't need to subpoena Google to find out your search history mate. In fact the AFP collect information from phone service providers all the time, that pretty much gives them everything. I used to work maintenance for Optus, I've seen it happen. It's not like we unknowingly give them everything, it's the price we pay for the lifestyle we're now accustomed to. Your average day consumer probably doesn't think about this at all.
Anyway, try adding some nuance. You seem to be fixated on one aspect of a very complex issue that can't be solved with a black or white solution. Look at it from the root and work your way up.
Real talk data is the 21st century resource grab. Facebook/Google and the like are the 21st century oil barons.
Elijah Perez
It all comes down to consent I suppose. The way they use your information needs to be legible and easy to find. There are still things we would consider a major invasion of privacy though, especially private conversations. I don't think this will change anytime soon and needs to protected and regulated if need be.
My issue with the conversation listening is that it impacts me even without me consenting. If I go to a friends house and they have alexa, it listens to me even if I don’t want be listened to or identified. If literally have to give up friendships in order to avoid their product
Jonathan Sanders
Nothing is free. You are using their service, so you have to give them something in exchange for that. Your "compensation" is the service.
Jackson Bennett
Recently my local town rolled out free broadband to everyone in the area.
>This is a monitored service. >Your device information is recorded >GDPR
Well Alexa is activated by voice command. If your friend can't stop himself using Alexa at your request while you're around. Why are they your friend? It's common courtesy to oblige guest preferences.
There's options to completely disable live recording as well. It all comes down to consent. As this technology advances these companies do need to be held accountable, and the users need to be made aware of the functionality before use, no doubt.
I think we've just entered kind of a legal Grey area though, now that I think about it. Assuming you don't operate under the one-party consent law.
You realize this is a client-side thing right? Using any kind of browsers "Do not track" or "Incognito mode" function only stops tracker cookies and similar technologies. Your ISP literally gives no fucks about your incognito mode, they have metadata. The information that can be extrapolated from metadata is vast to say the least.
We actually have a policy here related to this, I'm not sure about burgerland. It's called Mandatory data retention, your ISP is required to hold all of your metadata for two years.
>Unfortunately this is the reality we live in, with or without big tech. True and its only going to get crazier. I just wish they applied as much investment into real usable fields instead of just social bullshit.
>yes but we never signed an agreement stating that we WOULDNT be compensated for it Yes you did retard. That specific point would probably be in every single TOS contract you have ever signed. Don't like it? Then read contracts before you sign them you dumbass.
