171–180 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Permission was implied when you sent your data to them. Website you visit send you webpages that your browser parse and connect to every tracking widgets present in the html. If you don't like it, configure better your browser.
"Implied"? That's not how opt-in works, sorry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if all my friends and family are on facebook, I am ~forced~ to use facebook ? All my friends and family live in my state so I guess I don't have a choice and have to live my whole life in my motherland
> So if all my friends and family are on facebook, I am ~forced~ to use facebook ? "The classic example is the telephone, where a greater number of users increases the value to each. A positive externality is created when a telephone is purchased without its owner intending to create value for other users, but does so regardless. Online social networks work similarly, with sites like Twitter and Facebook increasing i…
I know people who are not on facebook. They made the decision. They have free will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So if all my friends and family are on facebook, I am ~forced~ to use facebook ? "The classic example is the telephone, where a greater number of users increases the value to each. A positive externality is created when a telephone is purchased without its owner intending to create value for other users, but does so regardless. Online social networks work similarly, with sites like Twitter and Facebook increasing i…
I can read, I don't see the link with the discussion. I know people who are not on facebook. They made the decision. They have free will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Implied"? That's not how opt-in works, sorry.
YOUR computer sends your data. YOU let it do that. If you don't want your computer to do it, don't surf internet or configure your browser / install extensions
The standard experience will need to adhere to privacy laws. GLHF with GDPR in 2 weeks :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YOUR computer sends your data. YOU let it do that. If you don't want your computer to do it, don't surf internet or configure your browser / install extensions
That's not how opt-in or JavaScript works together with law. If a hostile website serves hostile JavaScript code, it won't be "it was your computer who ran it"; THEY served it. The standard experience will need to adhere to privacy laws. GLHF with GDPR in 2 weeks :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can read, I don't see the link with the discussion. I know people who are not on facebook. They made the decision. They have free will.
Either you disagree with the network effect, or you don't understand it. I assume the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I opened a Facebook about one year ago. The information they had on me was rather disturbing. I never gave Facebook permission, directly or implied, to track my circle of past friends or make assumptions about my personal interests.
Permission was implied when you sent your data to them. Website you visit send you webpages that your browser parse and connect to every tracking widgets present in the html. If you don't like it, configure better your browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "And how will hackerISP pay for nationwide infrastructure?" Depending on where you live, ISPs do not need to own their own infrastructure. For a bit more information into how this can work, I'd recommend taking a look at local loop unbundling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling Also, GP is alluding to things that have already happened in the past, in the wild west days of the Internet it was more…
> Depending on where you live, ISPs do not need to own their own infrastructure. For a bit more information into how this can work, I'd recommend taking a look at local loop unbundling: So, you are in favor of regulation forcing last-mile operators to allow competitors to use their infrastructure at a competetive price set by the regulator without any discrimination based on the data transmitted, right? > Also, GP is…
Perhaps you're unaware, but there's a long history of government grants to fund telecommunications infrastructure, the growth is not solely due to private companies. Here's a recent example from my country (the UK), I'm fairly confident I could find equivalent stories from where you live:
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/07/uk-gov-start-4...
So no, I have no problem with local loop unbundling when it's partly tax payer money funding the network improvements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "And how will hackerISP pay for nationwide infrastructure?" Depending on where you live, ISPs do not need to own their own infrastructure. For a bit more information into how this can work, I'd recommend taking a look at local loop unbundling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling Also, GP is alluding to things that have already happened in the past, in the wild west days of the Internet it was more…
He says nationwide infrastructure and you link to regulations on last mile issues. I think you misunderstood “nationwide”, and made his point for him by citing governmental intervention in internetworking.