zlacker

>>pbrw+(OP)
Comments here so far focus on personalised ads as the issue -- but that's a symptom of what's being banned, which is the mass collection of personal data.

Personalised ads are beside the point. The issue is how they are personalised, namely by building a rich profile of user behaviour based on non-consensual tracking.

It isnt even clear that there's a meaningful sense of 'consent' to what modern ad companies (ie., google, facebook, amazon, increasingly microsoft, etc.) do. There is both an individual harm, but a massive collective arm, to the infrastructure of behavioural tracking that has been built by these companies.

This infrastructure should be, largely, illegal. The technology to end any form of privacy is presently deployed only for ads, but should not be deployed anywhere at all.

>>mjburg+kc
Why should it be illegal? I don’t understand the moral threat. Personally I feel that privacy gets too much airtime as a value — I see lots of other more direct issues (like political manipulation) that will remain an issue even with “strong privacy.”

>>dr_dsh+kg
> Why should it be illegal? I don’t understand the moral threat

Okay, then it should be legal for me to use Facebooks/Google's 'Intellectual Property' however I want.

Why should it be legal for them to steal my data, but illegal for me to use their's?

>>Clumsy+fm
They’re not stealing it, you’re giving it to them in exchange for using the products for free.

>>pb7+fy
This is not true, as can be seen from Facebook maintaining 'shadow profiles' on people who don't have actual Facebook accounts but can in any way be connected to them (eg through third party data).

>>dotnet+gA
Also, Facebook encourages users to tag people in photos even if they don't have a Facebook account.