|
Top-level
 Some people are like, “Build better consumer protections for data privacy.” No, you need something far stronger than “protections”. It should be downright illegal for any company or entity to track, file, catalogue, serialize, or index anyone without their explicit consent. 24 comments
Further, no company or entity should own your social presence, identity, or social graph. Nobody’s life should be deemed as an asset or property of someone else. When I talk to another human being, I see a human being. Big Social sees a vector for data that’s exploitable. Why do we allow Big Social to exist?  @atomicpoet I'm saying all around... If outros is really worried about surveillance by China via TikTok, they should avoid all the other platforms if even only 1/10th Edward Snowden said is truth  @atomicpoet everyone is saying the new #Utah laws go too far. They do. But #social platforms are to blame for building the most addictive algorithms and doing nothing to protect children from dangerous often inauthentically pushed scam trends. @atomicpoet With YouTube specifically, I feel like the sheer volume of content, whether entertaining or educational, would be a logistical impossibility to store (at least, for now) without something like alphabet inc. owning it. I feel like a good bandage for the time being though is using different front-ends, like invidious, to get rid of the surveillance tracking & ads. As for the rest… @atomicpoet Not all people aware of this data and privacy. They literally just see big social as a way to meet others and promoting your work. And some who knew, think they have no other way but to join the mainstream. Things have grown to the point there's no such thing as privacy and holy data.  @atomicpoet Humans are social animals. The storytellers myth of the rugged individual is just that, a Hollywood myth. Sure, anecdotally, you can find some that would prefer solitude for various reasons. And, that's ok. But the majority of humans need other humans.  @atomicpoet Facebook and Twitter supposedly get funded by taking our private data and selling it to anyone willing to pay for it. Supposedly, this is why their services are free. This business model turned out to be bad, so now they are looking for ways to charge us money. If they are charging us money, why do we allow them to sell our private data? They are making us pay to get exploited.     @atomicpoet I more or less agree (you of course have to make exception to account for the fact that individuals can’t be expected to forget information on request). I would also explicitly extend this to governments as well. @atomicpoet I don't trust the government to make laws that wouldn't stifle other free and open parts of the web. They are already heading that way. |
Gregory's Server
@atomicpoet companies hoarde user data.
that attracts attackers like flies
nobody cares about security, they all get breached
execs still get bonuses, their compensation mostly reflects market performance and stock price, not actual security.
maybe a congressional hearing
nobody gets punished, nobody gets fired, eventually the story fades
20 goto 10