Redpill me on why my data being sold is bad

You're either really offended at the fact that someone might have a different opinion than you. Or really desperate for attention. Either way. you should stop posting.

Attached: f4b.png (625x626, 98K)

Privacy and access are synonymous. "They couldn't actually control the money" requires some magical divine intervention to prevent them from using the information for a workaround like social engineering. In reality, I can use "safe" information to sign you up for things without your permission, and if I live in a country like China, the police won't stop me.

lurn clauses.

Attached: announcing.png (500x304, 56K)

Attached: l-3479-when-you-make-a-grammatical-error-while-arguing-on-the-internet.jpg (700x772, 218K)

Data being sold is not inherently bad when you have real consent, it's when you are forced (or de-facto forced through settings that are intentionally arcane and deceptive) to provide an unknown amount of personal data to an unknown amount of parties for an unknown amount of reasons.

The reason this is bad is because of fragility. Extremely powerful corporations (and then by extension, NSAfags and other state actors) having massive amounts of personal data on massive amounts of people can easily be abused, mishandled, leaked, stolen, used for a clandestine purpose by a government... any number of things. Centralization of sensitive information is volatile and dangerous overall.

Attached: 2d5jp8.jpg (500x500, 69K)

There's nothing grammatically wrong there. You're probably just not used to seeing sentences start that way.
The only issue is the typo here
>Either way. you should stop posting.
Should be
>Either way, you should stop posting.
This is obvious though since the capitalization. Does anyone like a pedant? I don't, in this context at least.

Ironically, more "intrusive" methods such as biometrics would go a long way and are hardly magical.
That's besides the point to begin with though, your issue here is one of access, not privacy. It's a farce of a point.
Think about it sincerely, do you hide your bank details for privacy sake or access sake?
I'm sure some do the former, but I bet the majority do the latter.

Attached: a.png (408x423, 5K)

Attached: Blank+_f5aba196cd6541335e5ce6f99ab3c656.jpg (699x637, 43K)

Post your cc and ssn

It's about principle and more. It's a business that benefits no one but the cunts who sell their souls for the extra dollar they make from your data; it's harmful for the rest. If you look at all the data leaks you can see that it's a huge security risk. You can be sure the corporations themselves will design even more vile uses of the data as AI development progresses. You can already find studies about public facebook data of individuals being used to predict lots of info about the subject. My bet is that in 20 years tops we'll see computers predicting behaviour of individuals with great accuracy, at which point it's basically game over - both corporations and governments will have great power over their subjects.
Considering no company seems to get punished for handling data improperly and being breached, and there's also the fact that there are hardly any standards that would protect the consumer it is a good argument. In fact, because some fag is going to commit fraud or whatever and actually be punished for this (unlike corporations), you're basically obliged to give anyone your info if "you have nothing to hide". The law'll take care of 'em, right?

The problem with the argument is that it only covers one aspect of this problem - there are other issues, like the fact that enabling these shitty business practices allows them to grow and become even more aggressive and disgusting.

@69963341
sry u lose. btr luk nxt time.

Attached: BUkmeJi.png (580x419, 350K)

Once again, privacy and access are synonymous. Privacy is literally about restricting access to things by means of limiting information.

>@

Attached: when-youre-losing-an-online-argument-but-the-other-person-31065734.png (500x375, 101K)

/u/69963371

Attached: 1_vO_kTGCVNnT1Q2VwrQwyhA.jpg (460x460, 21K)

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 120K)

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (1280x720, 329K)

My credit union and government have faulty resource access control so I can't trust you with those details at this time. I have no problem with you knowing those numbers, but they can be used as keys to access my own resources in a way that may go against my will.

That's basically what I'm saying. People cling to privacy more as a coincidence than anything else. The problems are not inherently privacy oriented, it's always something external such as resource control, impersonation, blackmail, etc.
These are separate issues being conflated under the umbrella of privacy just because it's the only thing you can do to mitigate them today.
I think the bank example is still a good one. I doubt many people would care about their bank details being exposed if nothing bad could come as a result of those details being exposed. It's not a concern of privacy at all in that case as far as I can see.

They are not synonymous. Privacy is limiting access to knowledge only. There are some cases where knowledge grants access but it's not true in all cases.

Put me into the screencap.

posting in the epic bait thread xp

You realize we can see that you're the same poster, right? I'm guessing you're desperate for attention.
So here it is. I am going to bed in maybe 10 minutes tops, so that is your time frame to say whatever it is you want to say and have it be read. You put an absurd amount of effort into trying to disrupt discussion just for this so I hope you don't waste it.

Privacy, as in "I don't want them to know what I fap to" is yet another separate issue. It might not hold as much weight and it does somewhat blend with security, but it is an area where protection for the common man is needed.
>if nothing bad could come as a result
Yeah, but such data is nothing more than noise, and we aren't talking about that. Limiting the amount of data and surveilance will improve both our security and privacy, and both are important. Privacy is technically a subset of security, but the fact remains that not only do we need more security in this area (at least give us some concrete standards to follow and gulags for companies not following them), we do want our browsing history to remain unknown to others.

@69963582
Just go to bed. You surely have an early day tomorrow with middle school and all taking up your time. Come back when you've hit puberty and lurked moar, newfag. You've yet to make a proper bait thread for your shitty YouTube channel.

Because i'm not being directly paid for it and yes I know there are contracts involved. Though if you're gonna use my data I want my cut.

>is needed.
I feel the complete opposite. I would much rather see a world of openness, where people have a lack of fear in exposing details like this. I value truth over all and wish nobody felt forced to lie about anything. This is obviously the ideal, but something that will never happen if we don't work towards it in some way.

My mind goes to the gay rights movements. Your sexual preference is ultimately meaningless, but people felt the need to hide it because it could actually get you killed depending on the era and location. The issue being the consequence of the circumstance rather than the information itself.
Regardless of my opinion on homosexuals, I don't want to interact with anyone dishonest, even if it's justified for them. I would much rather see change in society to eliminate these issues.

In other practical terms, the advocacy of privacy as a means of security is a non-solution. The technical world proves this on a regular basis when defeating systems that rely on security through obscurity.
It may work sometimes, but it is not a good solution. A better one should be worked on instead, and regardless of if we have one or not I think promoting and/or attacking a straw man (privacy) is not a good thing in any case.
Instead effort should be put on focusing on the underlying issues.

We must make it possible to be as open and honest as we are here, anonymously, everywhere. At a social level, but as well as on a technical level in terms of access control. Knowledge alone should not be all the keys required for whatever arbitrary resource we regard as precious.

The ideal being actual solutions and progress over the equivalent of hacky patches.

Sorry you feel that way. I gave you the opportunity at least.

Take into account the developers need to be paid for the free software and services they make and you use. Them not making a profit off of your data would mean they're not being paid for their work that you do benefit directly from.

>if nothing bad could come as a result of those details being exposed. It's not a concern of privacy at all in that case as far as I can see.
Only if you have magical divine intervention guaranteeing nothing bad will happen.

>There are some cases where knowledge grants access but it's not true in all cases.
It can be difficult to tell which is which, especially when circumstances change in the future and information can't be unseen.

The only "actual solution and progress" that fits your requirements is killing all humans.

Knowledge is power, and surrendering privacy means unbalancing power even more. In the same way criminals will still carry automatic weapons when anything but handguns with advocacy of privacy as a means of security is a non-solution
I disagree. Improving a persons privacy will improve his security. Every single database holding one's data is a liability. This does not mean that privacy is a solution that covers everything. It should still be employed, however.
>We must make it possible to be as open and honest as we are here, anonymously, everywhere.
Turn this around and think of it as wearing a mask everywhere (instead of not needing a mask). No one wants this. We want the duality, the near two-persona life.

There are always going to be things that one doesn't want to show, and I am sure a large majority would agree. If you want to say something, do it to their face or scream it in the shower, alone. It's your choice. You've a rare personality if you believe that you could live your life without any masks. What one says to his close friends, to their spouse, their coworkers, their priest, those are all different things. Putting all of those people in a single group won't solve anything. It will merely degrade the quality of relationships that are supposed to be more intimate.

Knowledge alone is precious, that is the point. Like some want to control oil, people vie for control of data as well. It is power by itself. And like I've mentioned before, limiting this flow of data is not the only security we need.

Your ideals might be realized 3000 years from now when humans have matured, I hope for better people too.
Every single one of those who rely on data mining/selling and advertising to keep afloat should fail.

Imagine if your sister googles for dildos on your computer and then your boss fires you because you're allegedly a faget.

>data is anonymized badly
>corporations have a collect data first, figure out what to do with it later mindset (GDPR changed it a bit)
>the NSA has its filthy little hands on everything collected by US companies
>companies buying ads have control over the content you see (think of the adpocalypse or reddit banning and quarantining subs)
>if your data is sold to third parties, shady companies will inevitably get their hands on it
>ads prey on brainlets ("get ripped in four weeks")

Can people stop with those shitty threads?
Why don't you link to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument and tell OP that he is a faggot that should start reading books ? An option exists for those thread

>If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place
Agreed.

Say you have a gf and like that she fucks you in the ass. For sure, you might not want people to know about it cause people might think you're some weirdo, assume you're gay and can't admit or shit like that. Some people get fired because they are against gay (see Eich case) but the opposite is true (in this case, they won't hire you).
And yet, you should be able to do whatever you want in your private life.
If you want to share kinky stories with your bf or gf you should be able to without someone reading your stuff.

Those people wanting to spy on their users are the first one to protect their privacy as much as possible.

>I have a personal problem with truth and accountability, therefore I must be protected.
I disagree. Hiding the truth for any reason is detrimental and only reinforces the thing you're against there.

their is no truth to be involved their. What you do with someone, the discussions you have with a group of people in private shouldn't be public. Nothing else.

>redpill me on why my data being sold is bad

Amazing.

I might not care if they know some technical detail about my account, but I would certainly care if they knew my balance.

Being even more bombarded with ads, mention one thing, a mic on your nice new alexa records that and next time you open your computer: Hey user here's where you can buy said thing is plastered on your login screen.

Just because you don't want someone to find out something meaningless doesn't make it true for everyone. To imply that something shouldn't be public because you yourself have reservations, is irrelevant.
It's pretty rare today that people hide their sexual preferences, and frankly, there's no reason they should have to. Eich's martyrdom is a good thing.
In the end, only the self contained minority(Mozilla employees themselves) where harmed in this, and it serves as a lesson for everyone. Eich is now successful on his own while Mozilla bleeds users. Eich shouldn't have to fear the truth being exposed and Mozilla employees should not have jumped to hasty and flatout wrong conclusions.
Everyone can learn from this, and everyone is better off now with the truth exposed. The truth being that modern Mozilla is filled with irrational people who obviously can't make good decisions.

Is it unfortunate that some people will attack you for being who you are? Yes. But what is the alternative? Lie and hide? For who's benefit? Those that dislike you? Your detractors?
I would much rather see instances like Eich's, as I feel like that is the only path forward where the negative reaction would decline with the rise of more and more truths.

I point again to history where minorities gained freedom through ruthless application of the truth.
>women can be reasonable
>blacks are people
>gays are not monsters
>you can enjoy drug and be a functional member of society
What truths are people hiding and why?
Expose the truth, be judged and advocate. The cost seems worth it. We have comfort and reason to gain at a societal level.

People complain about it being intrusive, I think it's absolutely necessary. If you're not going to willingly admit the truth of your daily life then I'm glad people are willing to intrude and find it out themselves. I am confident more good will come as a result of all these metrics than bad. Regardless of profit concerns.

>implying something is necessarily wrong just because people would judge you for it

>my data being sold

That is the redpill you fuckin cuck

I want to take the opportunity to point out how meta that comment is, but also say add that just because people would judge you for it that you shouldn't hide it either. I know not everyone agrees with that, but I think it is the way people should strive to be. Don't alter the truth out of fear of judgment.

>Just because you don't want someone to find out something meaningless doesn't make it true for everyone. To imply that something shouldn't be public because you yourself have reservations, is irrelevant.
Right there, you said it. I do want to have a private life where I can say and do anything with anyone I want.
I'm not implying that's true for everyone, I'm implying that's true for me and some other people (a lot I hope).
That someone do not care, is irrelevant. You should give people the choice of what belong to their private life and what belong to their public life.

That some subjects becomes accepted (sexual preferences for example) is true, but not completely. In some countries including USA or EU countries still knows homophobia and people get beat up because of that. And other are afraid of what their parents could think about it and one might understand he wants to keep this kind of stuff private.

To me, Eich wasn't a problem of privacy, but more a respect of opinions and political view (and religion iirc since it was about a funding a church). Because some people are assholes doesn't mean you should fire them as long as their point of view isn't involved at work, which wasn't the case (else, we would have the stories I guess).

People aren't all the same. You can't expect everyone to be brave and be able to assume part of their life publicly, and that's a good thing.
I can tell you here anonymously that I crossdress, like both girls and boys and like to take it in the ass because I'm anonymous and my privacy is respected. No one will ever make the link between this post and my true identity.
Will I say it publicly ? Actually, I don't give a fuck people know that, but I just don't want to bother with stupid people judging me and starting to talk shit about me just because I can be different or want different things in life.

In your examples, people were persecuted, killed and had a lot to lose, think about that too

>try to get a job
>you go to an interview
>thx, we will proceed to some checks of your online activities just to be sure you fit into the culture of the company
>fast foward few days
>Sorry user, we found out your browse Jow Forums which is flagged as an far right extremist website, and you also enjoy watching and reeding weeb shit including cartoon pornography involving demons with underage bodies

I think that's fair enough. We obviously have different views on it.

The fact that things like this happen are the why for me. And I think the bravery of the few is enough to benefit the many, hopefully changing the situation so that the rest don't have to be brave or strong, but instead just exists as they would. This is what I believe a civilized society to be.
Remember that proclaiming to be gay WAS brave, but is no longer, now it is nothing to be judged hastily about. I feel the same can happen for anything that is in actuality a reasonable truth, through the strength of the few.
While I wish everyone took the initative, because I feel like we'd get there faster. I don't actually expect it. I will however continue to urge people to consider it.

>I just don't want to bother with stupid people judging me
I can empathize with this. Personally though, I have shifted my own opinion and see this as a blessing.
I feel lucky that it's as easy as it is to know who to and who not to associate with. People who openly display their unfounded biases never become more than associates with me.

It should be obvious how unfair that is, but hiding the truth will never change this.
While it's not practical, wouldn't it be great if you could reason with them? Sometimes this is possible.
>if you really want to know, it's a public forum open to anyway, and just because I share a board with these people doesn't mean I am like each and every one of them. I mainly go there to talk about my hobbies with others freely and comfortably. I enjoy the unfiltered and pure nature of it. If this makes me a bad person in your eyes then so be it.
Then they call security and have you arrested for being the autistic racist nazi pedophile you are.

>Just because you don't want someone to find out something meaningless doesn't make it true for everyone. To imply that something shouldn't be public because you yourself have reservations, is irrelevant.
>People complain about it being intrusive, I think it's absolutely necessary. If you're not going to willingly admit the truth of your daily life then I'm glad people are willing to intrude and find it out themselves. I am confident more good will come as a result of all these metrics than bad. Regardless of profit concerns.
So you're suggesting that people have no right to keep things to themselves? That they aren't allowed to not tell people things? Would you legislate such a policy? Are you aware that legislation of such a policy would mean permanent government control over the private lives of all of its citizens?

OP obviously glows in the dark

>ITT: retard fight
Also, not technology.

Attached: 1548980353040.png (1000x432, 165K)

Idk if you are the same person or not but your arguments are essentially the same so I'm gonna address you as one. Just because the willful sacrifice of some people and the forced sacrifice of others has made society better doesn't mean "outing" people is ethical, or even effective. The moral argument is that people aren't enslaved to the idea of advancing society at any cost. They are free to make whatever decisions they want, even if it doesn't serve the ultimate good to the highest possible degree. End of story. The pragmatic argument is that people generally bring about change not as individuals but as parts of a group, and you can't really form a movement with other like-minded individuals in relative secrecy if you're outed from day one and everyone hates you for your beliefs. It is also naive to assume that it is always the right time to make a revolution (just think of all the failed anti-communist revolutions), or that going all out from day one is the way to go instead of weakening the power structure that oppresses you in small steps over time.

This will help

dailymotion.com/video/x514paq

I'm saying that metrics don't lie on purpose and that people shouldn't lie or hide things that should be inconsequential. That complaining about people collecting and sharing true data about you while you use their service that are up front about collection seems absurd.
If you have a problem with the world knowing the truth, why is that?
Would I enact this policy? No, but only on the principle that I wish for this to be compliant behavior. People should not be or feel forced to expose the truth, they should be comfortable and willing to on their own.

>you can't really form a movement with other like-minded individuals in relative secrecy if you're outed from day one and everyone hates you for your beliefs
I would say that this was true and may still be true in some places but I don't think it is necessarily true today. Publicly stating your controversial opinions is no longer enough to snuff yourself. At least it seems so. Obviously before people could straight up be hanged or exiled for disagreeing with something.
Even in the case of illegal actions, I think the alcohol and drug movements of relatively recent and current history demonstrate this.

That being said I think what you said is a fair argument and a reasonable stance altogether.
Ultimately the correct action seems dependent on a case to case basis.
Whom, when, where, what movement, etc.

>The moral argument is that people aren't enslaved to the idea of advancing society at any cost.
Maybe I should reconsider my own stance >The only "actual solution and progress" that fits your requirements is killing all humans.

It seems like most stupid people fall into one of two types.

>Conservatives:
>suspicious of the government having too much power
>capitalism is great, though
>corporations growing too large or powerful isn't a problem, since it's just proof of the success of free enterprise :^)

>Progressives:
>suspicious of corporations having too much power
>government-sponsored welfare programs are great, though
>the government growing too large or powerful isn't a problem because governments exist to help their own people only :^)

Very few people seem to understand that the smart thing is to be suspicious of ANY people becoming too powerful, since power corrupts and humans are inherently corruptible. As long as life is a competition, people will always have a survival instinct and be motivated to prioritize their own needs over the needs of others, especially over the needs of people not in their in-group.

For example, say your people have a history of competing for resources with some other group of people, Hindus and Muslims, British and Scottish, Jews and [insert any other nationality here], Amerindians and Americans, Chinese and Tibetans, etc. If you were a Hindu in the middle ages and you just gave the invading Muslims everything they want, then you'd lose your entire country, since they wanted everything. So you'd end up dying.

People have HAD to be selfish in order to survive. It's a requirement of all organisms; it's in our genetics. That's why it's impossible for one person or one group of people to ever be able to receive massive amounts of power and use it only for just, charitable purposes. Power corrupts and people are inherently corruptible.

In 5 years the HR transvestite in front of you before the job interview will go over a machine-generated summary and excerpts of everything you said you believe about sodomites and ethnic minorities on that Jow Forums Discord.

Attached: tumblr_ofpjj13IQe1qjjbfwo1_500.png (500x723, 547K)

Turn that bit about gay rights on it's head. If the there was no privacy there would be no defense against society itself for those people. Lives would be lost and destroyed, and ultimately the voices that allowed it to become more acceptable would have been silenced or disregarded. I HATE dishonesty, even when it's for good reasons, BUT expecting someone to throw their life away or put themselves in mortal danger over hiding something that shouldn't be necessary to hide anyway is selfish and stupid.

The main thing about that gay rights thing, is there is always another thing over the horizon that will be deemed, evil, ill-suited for society, morally unscrupulous, or any number of other ways to define things that are benign or shouldn't be persecuted. Being disabled, having the wrong beliefs(religious or otherwise), being of a certain nationality, having an association with a freaking website(Jow Forums) could all(and more...we aren't even scratching the surface here) be deemed undesirable to the point that it could destroy lives and there would be no escape because there would be no uncertainty of who was 'guilty'.

>cont.

In this world, the wall would never have fallen, anne frank would never have survived. Irish people would never have found work, civil rights wouldn't have happened(the fbi tried to get M. L. King to commit suicide).

The crosshairs are always shifting and you never know when you're going to be on the wrong side of them(morality not withstanding). As long as we are human the perfect society isn't coming for a long time. As long as there is something to gain socially or economically from being in a position of higher power or perceived power compared to others, there will always be a target but it will always be different. Think back to grade school and the dynamic of kids making fun of each other over things that sometimes didn't make sense to make fun of someone over. The thing itself is arbitrary it's the power, social benefit, or even simply keeping threats to position or status from equaling or surpassing that matters.

Human nature won't change so easy. It's impossible to know how the future will change and it's impossible to accurately view the shifting of the climate until it has happened.

And that's not even touching on the insane ability to manipulate individuals and POPULATIONS in ways that make everyone think and do what you want them to and think it was their own original thoughts and actions.

>Obviously before people could straight up be hanged or exiled for disagreeing with something.
This is the whole point. This is the likely outcome for anyone who is doing [taboo thing], in any year. Just because you live in the 1st world doesn't mean it won't happen. Even people you thought were allies might do it to you. There's always something that's going to be hated, and in a hypothetical society a thousand years from now where a lot of previous taboos are now acceptable, people just become more sensitive and thus ever smaller things will seem out of line and be prosecuted either by the courts or the citizens themselves.

There are also other effects like not being able to get a job anymore. There's always going to be something that will make outsiders, the lack of privacy just makes it easier for one to be ostracized.

Openness and honesty are good ideals but it's not the answer you think it is.

Even though people who stood up helped to advance in some situations doesn't make it true in every instance. I believe a lot of cases the truth and openness of those people only worked as well as it did because it wasn't impossible to keep the groups as a whole down because they couldn't be readily identified. That would limit internal support and the power of being economically self-sufficient enough to devote time and resources to advancing the cause of those affected.

Look at ww2 and the jewish population. They didn't care to hide their jewish heritage until it was to late to do it. No amount standing up and being honest would have and didn't help them. And no one was coming to their aid until hitler started attacking other nations and taking land. If there was no question of who was jewish and hitler focused on eradicating them before taking on his other endeavors, there would have been a lot less survivors or escapees and it would have been a much more successful campaign. Now imagine how much more successful it would have been if hitler could not only know who they were, but where they were, who they knew and communicated with and what they said, being able to identify them even in secret communications by word choice, style of writing, type speed and many even more minuscule indicators. And that's the tip of the iceberg on ways to trace and identify. I'm leaving out a lot. Now imagine having enough bulk data to accurately predict movements, behaviors(disguises, hiding out), and the responses to stimuli(propaganda to drive them inward)

Look at civil rights. There was no effective or widespread act of hiding that you were black. The openness and honesty of not hiding that you were black didn't change the position they were in. Standing up eventually did, but honesty and openness were not a part of it and didn't help or prevent anything.

>I point again to history where minorities gained freedom through ruthless application of the truth.

>women can be reasonable
What women were claiming to not be reasonable or hiding that they were women?

>blacks are people
Which blacks were claiming to not be people or hiding that they were black?

>gays are not monsters
Yes more gay people coming out showed that they were as normal as anyone can claim to be

>you can enjoy drug and be a functional member of society
Also another pretty valid example

>What truths are people hiding and why?

It's not about hiding things and sometimes the truth can be self-evident but that doesn't change peoples personal truths.

In every example the only way to do that was by standing up and pointing it out. Whether you belong to the group or not. Pointing out the truth with solid examples is what changed things, not people simply being honest and open about who they were, or what they were about. It may have helped in some cases but it's not the main factor and can be absent or unnecessary.

That said it helps in some cases to add to the collective knowledge, but even that doesn't matter in others.

Just because something should be meaningless doesn't mean that it is. If it has an appreciable effect, negative or positive, it means something even if it's only because people think it does or should.

>I'm saying that metrics don't lie on purpose and that people shouldn't lie or hide things that should be inconsequential. That complaining about people collecting and sharing true data about you while you use their service that are up front about collection seems absurd.
>If you have a problem with the world knowing the truth, why is that?
Because A) people can be sensitive about parts of their lives and themselves and allowing everyone to know everything allows other people to hurt you more deeply and B) sometimes keeping something a secret makes it a more special and intimate part of you. It's a signal to other people that you really care about them if you've shared something personal. Taking away secrets means taking away any sense of intimacy with other human beings.
>Would I enact this policy? No, but only on the principle that I wish for this to be compliant behavior. People should not be or feel forced to expose the truth, they should be comfortable and willing to on their own.
The way that you talk suggests that you want people to be forced into this behavior even if it isn't legally enforced, which is kind of messed up. Why do you feel the need to control others?

Oh and additionally: you may not be talking about the government controlling people's lives, but you are talking about the mob doing exactly that.

would you let someone fuck your wife or walk into your home and steal your shit? my data is MINE, my property. so when companies and corporations use it for things I don't explicitly give them permission for it's little less than theft. the whole business sector relies on people being lulled into not noticing that they are being stolen from by providing them some useless bells-and-whistles "services". in doing so they've ruined a lot of things.

tl;dr - OP want's reinforcement for being a cuck, same as anyone who wants to give away their rights for nothing.