Everybody wins when our data goes to big companies. Services are personal, searches are more effective...

Everybody wins when our data goes to big companies. Services are personal, searches are more effective, ads consist of possible products for me and criminals are easily caught.
Why worry so much about botnets?

Attached: IMG-20190217-WA0006.jpg (842x739, 300K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
youtube.com/watch?v=xHrhqtY2khc
youtube.com/watch?v=khTqmN2Lths
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

> I didn't do anything wrong, therefore I have nothing to worry about

Did you just post that to Jow Forums

like Jow Forums really cares about privacy and censorship, biggest bunch of pussies on the internet , they think they can get
around botnets and spying lol they can't even decide on an operating system.

You faggots should neck yourselves. No amount of convenience can ever pay for such a disguting invasion of privacy. The internet is a place where you can speak your mind freely anonymously, and whoever thinks in a different manner is either a stupid normie who isn't really bright about the topic or government shills and kikes.
>I have nothing to fear because I have nothing to hide
This is the biggest bullshit I've heard.
Kys. Also, sage.

probably time you put a loaded shotgun in your mouth and pulled the trigger, commie fascist.

fuck off glow in the dark
s**** and r*******

Attached: 1525736330416.jpg (491x491, 43K)

>can't even decide on an operating system.
based and redpilled

Attached: 34.png (300x100, 12K)

Today you're a law abiding citizen. Tomorrow you're a horrible criminal. What changed? The law. So go ahead and give them your info

>and criminals are easily caught.
and you're next on the list
>but, I've never done anything wrong
Not yet

>Everybody wins when our money goes to the state. Services are taken care of, allocation is more effective, the party could possibly create products for me and criminals and wrong thinkers are easily caught.
Why worry so much about communism?
commies get the rope you know?

Unless the company is very small and can pay a lot of attention to you, personalized services are objectively worse than anonymized ones. At the end of the day the company is still just trying to guess what you want and will often get it wrong.

It's not possible to make effectively targeted ads without advertisers knowing the contents of my bank accounts, my political affiliations, my sexual/romantic status, my medical history, etc, none of which I am comfortable sharing with profit seeking entities who don't wish to improve my situation but rather sell me bandaid solutions which require constant payment.

Criminals being easily caught is a myth, they advance with technology at roughly the same pace as law enforcement, sometimes faster because they don't have to waste time begging tax payers for increased budget.

This but unironically. Services knowing my preferences has literally never harmed me and often helps me.
>X knows what music I might like
>Y knows what products I might like
>Z knows what I don't want to see
etc. etc.
>BUT THEY PROFIT OFF THAT DATA
Oh no, someone getting paid by someone else to pamper me for free. How horrible. They might use the data they purchased to tailor their services for me specifically. It's awful!
>aren't you worried about your data being public? Privacy is important!
The truth is more important to me. If the world finds out my preferences, then so be it. I am not afraid of anyone finding out what I truly believe and if anyone thinks that my opinions are bad and wishes to challenge or persecute me, then I will do what is right and defend my position and the position of those like me. Cowards can keep trying to hide, lie, disrupt, and cry. You can't stop progress.

> im a sjw tranny liberal
ahh that explains it

Saying something doesn't make it true, I'm sorry my opinion upsets you but your post really has no impact. If you want to discuss it, I'm open to it, but this is just fluff.

You know the internet as you dream is communist, right?

>No one makes money
>Everyone is equal
>Everybody can be whatever they want
>People "work" for free, to keep things going

It's a mix of communism and anarchism

If these data centers are something like Public Utility Companies that are incorporated with sufficient laws and contracts to guarantee ethical functioning, and sufficient openness and oversight to enforce those laws and contracts, that might be a reasonably adequate societal infrastructure component for the short-term while humanity sorts itself out.

well, just hope that you don't have the 'wrong' opinion because nowadays you can lose your job, income, family, friends, house and be put into prison for just having the 'wrong' opinion. That's how society works now.

I understand that's how it is but I will not let it influence me. I would rather challenge it than let it be the norm.

It already is the norm, it just hasn't affected you personally yet you narcissistic bastard. Man up and help change the perception that censorship should not be tolerated and privacy for everyone is important.

congratulations, you just shut down 90% of Jow Forums

I think it's more anarchism, there are of course capitalistic and communist ideals present but i think most of us want no rules here.

The agenda of the advertisers who manipulate you is to maximize profit for their shareholders. Your health and well-being is not a factor (in economics, this is called an "externality"). The agenda of those who sell your information and access to you to the advertisers is to maximize the profit of their shareholders. It's all very stupid.

>Services knowing my preferences has literally never harmed me and often helps me.
This is a lovely way to bury your head in the sand that works great, until you end up working for a competitor to one of these datamining companies and you realize that taking that attitude directly removes money from you and gives it to them.

>Everybody wins when our data goes to big companies.

Open your legs wider whore. I love the way you enjoy being exploited. Let me eat your brain for dinner.

You have no basis with which to make those claims and your opinion differs from my own anyway.
Privacy has nothing to do with censorship in the slightest and is not very important to me.
I would rather see a world where there is very little privacy and more understanding. Privacy is a band aid solution at best for multiple problems in society. You don't need to hide things if people don't jump to hasty conclusions and start witch hunts over things that are not actually important.

I don't see anything wrong with service providers making profit or trying to maximize profit if there's no observable harm. You can make the argument that the tactics they employ are "predatory" but that doesn't affect me so I don't care. You can make the argument that they can make attempts to control or influence you, but ironically that's antithetical to their goal if they try it on me. A personal example, I liked when Google was personalizing results, but I stopped using them when they started censoring their results or bubbling up things that fit their agenda.

>directly removes money from you and gives it to them.
Nobody has taken my money. Profiting from my data is not taking money directly from me. That's such a bad perspective to have. At no point do I have to use these services, but if I do, it's because I like and agree with them, and it's within their terms to do what they say. I think it's a more than fair exchange considering how much it costs them to maintain this kind of thing while offering it for free on my part.

this kills the Jow Forums man

Movie night!

Attached: Cube-movie_poster.jpg (314x445, 36K)

>Profiting from my data is not taking money directly from me.
If you are working for a competitor then it actually is.
And even if you aren't, they profit from wasting your time. It's valuable, don't waste it by looking at ads. Instead spend it on more useful activities such as posting on ancient sumerian phylactery forums.

The Century of the Self (Full Documentary)
youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

The Corporation - Full Movie
youtube.com/watch?v=xHrhqtY2khc

Interview with Satirist Mike Judge on Idiocracy
youtube.com/watch?v=khTqmN2Lths

Attached: US-Failing.jpg (1200x1200, 1.05M)

> I would rather see a world where there is very little privacy and more understanding.
You are on the wrong planet, Utopia is two rocks to the left.

>profit from wasting your time
One of my points is that the services these people offer is the exact opposite. When they know you enough to know what you likely want, it saves me time.

>If you are working for a competitor then it actually is.
I'm sorry but even if my stance gives off some kind of super capitalist mindset, I still ultimately care more about myself than my parent company. Lucky for me I don't work for a competitor anyway. Nobody is taking profit from my parent company given that we provide a product, not a service.

>It's valuable, don't waste it by looking at ads.
Again this is counter to what you're saying. Targeted ads are just that, targeted. The ironic thing is that obfuscating your data is what makes adverts irrelevant to you and thus a waste of time. Not that this is what I'm talking about anyway. There's a big difference between advertising on web sites and videos and suggesting products in a marketplace. If I'm on Amazon.com I'm obviously there to buy something already and would rather they put things up front, honestly too with words like "recommended for you", I know what that means and I'm glad it's there.
UH OH AMAZON KNOWS I LIKE BEEF JERKY SHUT IT DOWN

They cannot know what you want all the time, that isn't possible. Average click-through industry rates are around 1/1000, so 99.9% of the time it is a waste of time, this is well known (I work for a competitor)
Amazon knowing you like beef jerky is a bad example and actually isn't something you want them to know because all they will realistically do with that information is raise prices on you. Showing you more ads for beef jerky is only beneficial for them if they can do this, and you go along with it because you're bought into the mindset that "the company will do me no wrong"

>can't decide on an operating system
It's Linux. Usually with optional GNU libraries.

BSD

Can you link me to where I can download this Linux operating system? I looked around and all I saw was a kernel.

I feel like we're talking about 2 different things. I'm speaking generally with a stance that companies knowing about me is not treated negatively by me, and that them making a profit off that data is also not a negative thing in my eyes. You seem to be focused on web adverts specifically.

>what is Alpine linux

Honestly, you deserve to be shot on spot.

An OS, which is actually pretty silly to call "Linux" because it's a container OS and so the images often include no Linux kernel.

it's like communism minus the gook pointing an AK to your head, it's a form of anarchy really, no state regulations, people do what they want and make money through voluntary associations.

How retarded are you?
If your privacy goes to hell, while you also support this, the very moment your personal insurance company raises your fees because of dangerous behavior or possibly risen cancer risk, will be the moment you regret them knowing litterally everything about you.
Go get your DNA tested by these (((private))) companies, who tell you how much of a nigger, kike or real human you are. But don't whine and open a thread on Jow Forums or Jow Forums, when you find out your insurance company kicked you out because of risky genetic profile, or because they see your partying pictures on jewbook and conclude that your liver is on stake.

There are thousands of other aspects, i haven't even mentioned here, that can fuck up your life entirely, once private companies (data sellers) come over this sensible shit about you.

>hypotheticals
I'm real worried.

Also you're still wrong. They have the right to do so and it's based off of the truth. Sorry that being a bigger burden will cost your more. That's only fair.
>oh I'm so mad that I can't make people who use these services less pay more while I use them more and pay less
I'd rather have lower insurance costs. Fuck, your argument is terrible.

It's not a hypothetical, like I said realistically there is nothing else they will do with that information. The whole point of collecting it is to take your money and leave you with as little in return as possible.

We are marching towards such a system. the development is clearly visible already.
Look at how Amazon has refined their customer user data base analysement.
Do you really think, that your insurance company is absolutely not interested in your DNA? Sure they will know everything about your probable future perspectives on getting cancer or any other disease or chronic illness.
Genetics can reveal all this once given to the "wrong" people. And the more progress they make in terms of understanding ghr DNA, the more revealing and sensible your data gets.

>We are marching towards such a system
If it's not obvious, I want that. Fairness enforced via the objective truth. I'm sorry but I don't think it's fair that everyone pay the same when their needs are different. I don't think it's fair that you get away with it by hiding facts either.

>I'd rather have lower insurance costs. Fuck, your argument is terrible.
This is a comment of a 12 year old, who still thinks he'll gonna live healthy forever.
You will regret your opinion the moment your insurance company sorts you out because they came to the conclusion that your risk for getting cancer is imminent or they rise your fees to unbearable amounts.
Enjoy your custom taylored death penalty user.

Health insurance companies calcualte their income/fees based on their expenses. Then an average fee is calculated for each age group to make the company go round.
If they are able to sort out risky patients because of DNA information, they will also do this.
I am really interested in looking at your face when you get kicked from your health insurance, landing on a blacklist and two years later (uninsuranced of course) your cash paid doctor tells you about your cancer.
Or what about beloved family members then, that get refused treatment, because they got sorted out but you want them to continue living becaue you happen to love your parents/brothers and sisters?
Will you be able to pay for all surgeries and chemotherapies? Will you be able to pay all these expenses while you aren't even able to work and earn a buck? I guess not.

Yeah, probably a bad example. Thought, that coping gnutard could think of something like this.
What I meant to say: GNU is not necessary to run Linux on hardware. And I bet that much more people run Linux systems than GNU systems. All you need Linux to run is init

If you're going to keep resorting to ad hominem I'm just going to disregard you. Ironic or not on my part, it does nothing other than demonstrate to me that what I say is frustrating you and that you're more inclined to resort to emotional appeal and personal bias than actually consider the points made.
I have no obligation to put up with this.
Your whole stance wreaks of paranoia based on assumptions and nothing more. My whole stance is backed by the observable contemporary that you can validate yourself if you so choose.

It's a stupid thing to waste time discussing hypothetical futures in this way.

Linux is actually more popular because of Android, which is the most popular OS in the world and includes the Linux kernel but not GNU. Notice how they didn't call it "Android Linux" because calling it that would be stupid and misleading.

Then ask yourself just for a second, if a stock based company is or is not interested in minimizing risk, effort and cost to the benefit of their win.
If you come to the conclusion that this is most likely a yes, then you can imagine that they will use your DNA once they came over the data to analyze your personal risk.
This can be a death penalty for everyone who has a higher risk for cancer.
Furthermore ask yourself if you would like this scenario happen to you.
And ask yourself, why after all data collecting exactly this scenario should not become true.
Companies will always use the latest technology and informations in order to maximize their profits.

I made good and valuable points, which you refuse to adress.
Instead you play the hypersensible because i called you 12 year old. And this on Jow Forums haha

>I made good and valuable points
Saying something doesn't make it true, the amount of "if"'s in your post alone is proof enough of this being nothing more than speculation, more importantly not factoring in the whole context. With health care specifically, individual cost rarely matters when you consider government policy and subsidization. You can't even guarantee that in the next 5 years individual health care will be a thing, let alone a death sentence. it's such a hyper specific future that you have crafted from a single scoped perspective based on nothing in reality.
This is why it's not worth addressing, not because you think this being Jow Forums somehow makes me obligated to respect your dribble.

This entire discussion has been secondary to the original. It's nothing more than a meaningless tangent.

You sound stupid. Why would google call it Linux if Android is their thing? Why wouldn't they take credit for it?
It's just for marketing purposes.
Does GNU project also insist on calling it GNU/Linux for marketing purposes?
What about all embedded linuxes?
This Android thing is dumb comparison
Unless you're saying that GNU project and google, generally has same goals, ethics

You sound mad that Google made a linux variant more popular than your beloved *insert gay distro name here*

The GNU project insists on calling it GNU/Linux out of respect for Linux. They could insist on calling it just GNU, but they don't.
And I think they do have the same goals and ethics in terms of marketing, which is strictly to avoid confusion by not using misleading statements such as "Linux is an OS"

>misleading
I hope you realize that the kernel was the only thing people considered to be the OS for like 3 decades. The trends of considering other things part of the OS is a recent trend, mostly because of the GNU project wanting validity and recognition.

>he thinks this is Jow Forums

>it's such a hyper specific future that you have crafted from a single scoped perspective based on nothing in reality.
Are there any signs that show we are not heading towards a data and information based society?
I would rather say that you are the one not grasping what is going on.

The mechanisms to extrude and analyze data in order to make or maximize profit is already here. Why do you categorily refuse to accept that this is the case when it comes to health insurances?
Do you have any valuable point where i could say this is an acceptable standpoint? Or will you continue riding on the "muhh_unconvenient_thought_and_that's_why_it's_bullshit" tactics.

The odds are against you user, because the entire business world thinks and acts as i described. Only the government of your specific country can prevent that from happening through regulations, but as we all know, they are more keen to satisfy the needs of multinational companies rather than your individual rights as a human being.

Sure, we discuss the future here, but according to the direction we are heading, this is the most possible scenario yet until massive unforseeable changes may shift future perspectives.

>This entire discussion has been secondary to the original. It's nothing more than a meaningless tangent.
No, you just can't deal with the fact that your opinion gets rivaled by the development this very thread was created on (which is data collecting).

>Mr. nitpicky thinks he made a point.

That is demonstrably false, in particular Debian has been going by the name Debian GNU/Linux since the mid 90s when they received FSF funding. I can't speak for the other distros because that is what I was using back then and GNU was a big part of it.

>You can't even guarantee that in the next 5 years individual health care will be a thing
I find it humorous you accuse others of inventing hypothetical situations when you bring this out. My government's policy towards subsidies is abysmal. I don't have the option to wait 5 years, change is needed right now. Some don't have the luxury of giving up all their data and not giving a fuck about who sees it.

I guess he lives in his liberal mindset bubble, where responibility is given up on. And he totally belives that they will do right for him.
every single thing that would rival this bubble must be condemned as hypothetical and absolutely not possible.
The golden cage would be in danger if he would allow himself to think.

He has no points made so far, but accuses me of having none, while i provided a several ones he refused to adress or meet.
Acts super sensible about being called 12 year old, while calling me out as a delusional faggot between the lines he wrote.
I bet my ass on that he is either a kike or leftist.

I hope i didn't trigger is microagressiveness now.

GNU is just a software, running on Linux OS.

Attached: AYYYYYYY.jpg (720x731, 33K)

The mid 90's is 2.5 decades after Unix...

Attached: bobno.gif (280x210, 1.41M)

I guess you nailed it user.
There is no way insurance companies will not use DNA and individual data once they can get their hands on it.
Car insurance companies do the very same.
They analyse data from every specific age group, sex, car model and year of model in order to calculate the insurance their customers have to pay.
Additional to this, the fees vary from region to region because of traffic accident risk or other risk, based on the data they already have collected previously.
Mileage is also included in this calculation of course.

>I find it humorous you accuse others of inventing hypothetical situations when you bring this out.
What are you even talking about? Citing that an alternative could happen is proof of why you can't speculate. This is not a claim of what will happen.

I'll say it again, saying something doesn't make it true. To claim that I'm al iberal when you've read my own stances is laughable. To claim that responsibility is given up on when we're talking about metrics based on facts, is even worse. The irony in trying to shuck and/or hide responsability and demand privacy while calling others liberals and irresponsible. I doubt your sincerity.

More than half of your post is self convincing. I don't know who you're trying to convince, but it isn't me. Talk about a bubble.

Not that it matters, the market has been trending against what you desire. Sorry this upsets you, but it is what it is. Like it or not your secrets will be exposed, logged, and traded. You can't hide the truth, and I don't know why you would even want to. Everything you've posted seems either selfish, exploitative, or paranoid.

I never asked for this

>To claim that I'm a liberal when you've read my own stances is laughable
I want to really drive this point home. When this image is my stance condensed.

The fact that the person I'm arguing with keeps bringing up genetic defects makes me wonder too.

Attached: quote-you-have-nothing-to-fear-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-joseph-goebbels-70-50-02.jpg (850x400, 52K)

>I'll say it again, saying something doesn't make it true.
It already became true. Companies are collecting and trading data already now. But you absolutely exclude the possibility that this is the case, while you confirm my version when you say:
>Not that it matters, the market has been trending against what you desire.

>To claim that I'm al iberal when you've read my own stances is laughable.
Nothing is more selfish than people who want the lowest possible price, no matter if millions of other people have to die because of that.
As said, you will change sides the very moment you get sorted out yourself and your cash paid doctor tells you your pain comes from a cancer tumor.
And don't tell me this is unlikely to happen and pure out of nothing fiction.

>when we're talking about metrics based on facts, is even worse.
It is a fact, that companies collect data. For what exact reason do they do this? Can you answer it?
Of course you will not, because it would contradict your opinion.

>Like it or not your secrets will be exposed, logged, and traded.
Yours too. Be sure of that.

>You can't hide the truth, and I don't know why you would even want to.
I guess you will finally understand it, when you get your diagnosis and the insurance companie has either kicked you out or risen your fees to unbearable amounts in advance of eventual illness that requires costly medication and treatment.
I told you a several times already why, but you are mentally so narrowed, that you refuse to understand it. This is rather your issue and not mine.

>More than half of your post is self convincing.
Projection, based on nothing.

>I don't know who you're trying to convince, but it isn't me. Talk about a bubble.
I already understood that you are immune to any good points made.
If they don't fit your narrative, they have to be futile.
Once again, based on what you stand for, you would need to stay healthy until the last day of your life. Which in most cases does not happen.

>But you absolutely exclude the possibility that this is the case
Where? I think you're more confused than anything else.

>Of course you will not
Man you've run my patience out. If all you're going to do is resort to making assumption after assumption it's not worth discussing. I don't think you realize what you're doing. You're legitimately exposing that you have a preconceived notion. This turns a discussion into an argument, and given the fact that I don't know you, there's nothing in it for me to give you patience to convince you.

I don't think you want to discuss this topic seriously, I think you want to try and wear me down like you've done.

Consider this a concession.

Look i'm healthy as fuck right now and i have nothing yet to worry about, but what when i get ill and my insurance company kicked me out because of muhh genetics?

Answer to yourself: Would you like to be given up on, because you happen to get cancer or any other life threatening illness?
Would you gladly say: "fine, lets die for the greater sake of company gains and profits"?
I guess not.
And that's also the same reason sensitive leftie user refuses to meet my points and to answer any questions.
He know's that i'm right, but he won't give in or admit it openly.
He will finally fall victim for his own selfishness if he gets ill.

Being this kind of a pussy requiring and echo chamber so you can anonymously tell what you want because you're too afraid to get connected with the opinion. Grow some balls fagget.

>Where? I think you're more confused than anything else.
You have denied the possibility that DNA data would get used against people the entire time.
user, that's why we discuss here. You called it a hypothetical bubble, that won't happen.
But you finally gave in by contradicting yourself. So fine so good. Small progress, but better than nothing.

>Man you've run my patience out
No, i pushed you into a corner, where you can't get out anymore.

>If all you're going to do is resort to making assumption after assumption it's not worth discussing.
What assumptions?
>That data is used by companies in order to maximize their profits?
>That some people have genetically higher risk of getting life threatening ill?
Are you saying these two points are assumptions and not facts?

>I don't think you realize what you're doing.
Says the guy who is not realizing that he will put his own life at risk in the system he prefers.

>You're legitimately exposing that you have a preconceived notion.
Projection

>This turns a discussion into an argument, and given the fact that I don't know you, there's nothing in it for me to give you patience to convince you.
Then give me some good points i could consider discussable. But you don't. Everything you do is muhh and bahha not an argument while making no points at all.

>I don't think you want to discuss this topic seriously,
I try, but you refuse to bring points and meet my points.
I can't have a serious discussion with a person that obligatory says everything is bullshit, because it rivals his opinion.

>I think you want to try and wear me down like you've done.
I think you want to try and wear me down like you've done.

I'm not sure why you thought I would read this post concession.

>I'm not sure why you thought I would read this post concession.
I don''t even expect you to understand what i read.
You seem resistant to any kind of logic reasoning.
>sensible leftwing user does not realize this isnt a private messenger chatroom.
The only reason i reply to you, is to prevent others from falling for your fallacies.

>I'm not sure why you thought I would read this post concession.
I don''t even expect you to understand what i wrote.
You seem resistant to any kind of logic reasoning.
>sensible leftwing user does not realize this isnt a private messenger chatroom.
The only reason i reply to you, is to prevent others from falling for your fallacies.

>No amount of convenience can ever pay for such a disguting invasion of privacy. The internet is a place where you can speak your mind freely anonymously, and whoever thinks in a different manner is either a stupid normie who isn't really bright about the topic or government shills and kikes.

glad I'm not idealistic like this anymore.

Attached: jpg.png (446x401, 403K)

>even now 2/3 lines are self convincing
I'm being honest, it comes off as goading.

No, you are self convincing.
What other purpose would a comment without any points made be good for.

>literally no u
user...
You've either misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented my arguments, intentionally resorted to childish remarks, and constantly made assumptions. If you where being sincere, you did a very poor job and I'm telling you exactly why I'm not interested in discussing with you. It's nothing more than a token. You now have some insight as to why people are less likely to want to engage with what you say. If you don't actually care, then that's fine, but the information is there for you to take. Given that this is a public forum, it's a reasonable assumption that people WANT to discuss with others. When you act the way you've been, it makes people not want to interact with you. Maybe they don't always tell you why that is, but I am willing to. Take it or leave it.

back, i say! back to Jow Forums! the power of rms compels thee!

>You've either misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented my arguments,
You haven't even made any.
The only point you made was "i want stuff as cheap as possible".
What are the long term cost for the society as a whole?

>intentionally resorted to childish remarks, and constantly made assumptions.
Then stop your childish "muuh not possible and stupid" assumptions
It's not me doing this.
I have continously offered you to make points i can meet. But everything that comes from you is that i'm plain wrong on everything without even explaining why.
The ball is on your side user.

>If you where being sincere, you did a very poor job and I'm telling you exactly why I'm not interested in discussing with you.
Look, i can't do more than asking to bring arguments that are discussable. You haven't done this once. How is that my fault?
In difference to that i brought up as points:
>companies collecting data
>some people tend to have higher risk for genetically based illness (You may be amongst them)
>and that the combination of those two points made, will lead to many people being excluded or put on extremely high monthy fees of their health insurance companies.
>which then maybe leads to people dying because they can't afford an insurance or even getting blacklisted by them
You have furthermore not explained, how this would be a good society to live in and why this is preferable over a more more fair model.
Keep in mind, this could hit you also.

>Given that this is a public forum, it's a reasonable assumption that people WANT to discuss with others.
Since your very first reply to me, i wait for points made by you, than can provide a base for a sensed discussion. You have yet failed to deliver on that.
So this is not my fault.
You basically critizise and accuse me for what you are doing yourself.
If this is the way you like to discuss, it's no wonder no one wants to talk to you. Maybe they don't always tell you why that is, but I am willing to. Take it or leave it

Saying what my point is when that doesn't reflect what I said, is misrepresenting or misunderstanding my point. I clarified already, but you don't wish to respect this. As a result, we can't discuss it because you're making things up as you go. It is what it is.

and you become a slave who sucks satans nigger cock.

Also that's basically what self convincing is.
>your point is X
>>no it's not
>I'm confident your point is X
You should either ask for clarification, or read the posts again. Most of what you've said so far is actually the opposite of my stance, of which I think I would know better than anyone else. Trying to convince me what my stance is, doesn't make sense, and isn't worth reading.

You're kidding right?
Everything you came up with is "why pay more for people with higher risk"
And "they should pay for their own higher risk"
That was basically it.
And i asked you a several times, if you would be happy about this system you're asking for, if you yourself happen to get ill once.
Which you haven't even replied on.
Yours, as well as my opinion or model have two sides of a coin each.
I do understand that you want people to be honest and not lying. But that is something you made a false asummption on by saying i wanted to protect liars. Which i don't.
I just dont want that people cathegorily get excluded or put on fees they can't pay just because they happen to have a certain genetic profile, which they have no guilt in.

>You should either ask for clarification, or read the posts again.
then clarify. I asked you a several times now to make points and come up with discussable arguments.
which you didn't even respond to. Don't you see this?

And based on this, you complain about me making assumptions because there is no further calification of your standpoint.

prepping the cattle, huh? How much per thread?

I like how you're trying to ad-hom your way into an argument, like an angry 12 year old. It's hilarious.

Just because you focus on one aspect of my entire post history, specifically directed at secondary responses, does not make it my point or a correct representation of it.
I am not and have not been arguing anything in regards to price, that seems to be your own topic. I mentioned this already
>This entire discussion has been secondary to the original. It's nothing more than a meaningless tangent.

From the beginning I am of the opinion that privacy is a non-solution and people making profit off of your data is not inherently evil. It's that simple. You are the one specifically talking about DNA and pricing. And now you're trying to say that it's my argument for some reason.

>Which you haven't even replied on.
>If it's not obvious, I want that.

Even worse, after concession you're desperately trying to rope me back into it. Which is just being rude and won't result in anything productive.

Can you imagine reading my comments for once?
What did i ask you repeatedly for?
Maybe to give some points that are discussable?
How did your espond to it?
Did you even try to answer the requests made by me a multiple times now?

Serious question, are you Italian?

70225591
I ain't falling for the bait, OP
You ain't even getting a (you)

Seriously, don't you see that he is trolling you since like 30 comments or so?


Hey, stop that shit NOW.
This user you continously reply to made points, he asked you many times to give him some points and you totally ignore it for bullshit reasons.
Also, why are you on channel4 when you are so sensible about the discussion style? Isn't that more of an excuse in order to not answer the other anons requests on you making points?

Data collecting and giving away you privacy may seem a good option for you, but most people tend to not trust these multinational companies as much as you do.
Health insurance user made some good points, especially when you consider how sensible and destructive such data can be/get in the wrong hands.

You should start answering his questions and bring up some good points instead of ignoring him.

>concession
Dude, you're on channel4 for. Are you seriously this retarded to belive you can put stop rules on someone?

Just because you don't like what I'm saying, doesn't make it trolling.

The user made points that where secondary to the topic and I responded sincerely anyway. In the cases where they say I didn't, I even just went as far as to quote the posts where I did.
You're full of shit if you're saying I didn't reply to them.

If there's anything you wish to know, ask me clearly now and I'll give you a serious response.

>acting like Jow Forums has discussion rules
Come on now. If I concede, I concede. I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me to put up with it just because it's Jow Forums. I made that exact statement already. Saying shit like that makes it sound like nothing more than an excuse to misbehave. If you want to talk to me, you have to do so on my terms. Plain and simple.

>t. google employee

No.

I thought you where someone else.

>Did you even try to answer the requests made by me a multiple times now?
Regardless of if you did or didn't already. Please state it clearly now. What do you wish to know from me. Your wall of questions is ambiguous.
Don't back reference either. Ask the question, I'll answer it.