141–150 of 233 posts
Note that this is only necessary because the 2018 Republican Congress voted to allow ISPs to sell user data. https://www.consumerreports.org/consumerist/house-votes-to-a...
Gotta make it easier for the Russians to target you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Causing incredible annoyance is obviously the idea. It would drive away users, making business models that relied on it less efficient. It's a great idea.
Has this worked out in practice, say with cookie warnings? Or do most of us click Accept and move on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no one wants to have to pay a subscription fee to every single site on the internet. If we had a reasonable micropayments system so I could spend a few cents per article I read online from non-subscription sites, I'd be thrilled. I do not want to see ads, ever. I do not want companies collecting or selling my activity patterns. If I've signed up for something, I don't want my personal details sold to someone else i…
"I will gladly pay my proportion of what's necessary to keep the service running in order to avoid the "you're not the customer, you're the product" mentality." Since both are complementary and independent revenue streams, why do you assume that you paying cash for something does not mean you will be monetized in other ways as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I think you're incorrect. I think most users recognize that they usually don't have a choice: they don't have money to provide for services that they need, so they are _forced_ to use services that are cheaper or free. And I think most users feel helpless to do anything about it because most politicians actively ignore them (because t…
I think you're underestimating the average non-tech oriented user that simply uses. A lot of those considerations might be true for users conscious about data collection, but I'd imagine that's a very small subset of users.
While I certainly think it's possible, it doesn't echo with my personal anecdotes of friends and family. They all fit in with "I don't want to be tracked but I'm helpless to stop it!" crowd. All of my family, most of my friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should ban collecting tons if info about people, for all companies, period. We won't, because banks and CC companies are very into doing that and the politicians love them, but we should.
No. Because many businesses rely on data available. FAANG would be out of business then.
"To advertise or market the provider's communications-related services to the customer;"
With ISPs that own networks, e.g. Comcast -> NBC, would a service like NBC Sports be considered a communication-related service of Comcast's? If yes, then could they feed that customer data into NBC's advertising infrastructure? If so, could NBC then sell that data?
Do Maine judges tend to honor the spirit or the letter of the law more often?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't charge more for refusing to opt in, so nobody will opt in. The only alternative seems to be a hike in rates for everybody. Which isn't necessarily bad, it's arguably better that people actually know what cost they're paying. It's just naive to assume that this is ISPs getting some "extra money" on the side. This is factored into the revenue from the service. Now they'll have to adjust their models.
> The only alternative seems to be a hike in rates for everybody. My naive understanding of the market is that the market doesn't work this way -- you charge what the market will bear. How much a product costs to make has nothing to do with how much you should charge for it; you charge what people will pay you. So if the market is already buying a product at a given price point, and you find a way to save some money…
I certainly don't think they will pass all of the cost onto the customers; that's never how it works. But, since the costs per connection are still the same, and the revenue per connection is now lower, they probably won't be at their optimum anymore. They'll probably find a new optimum by raising their prices, making a bit more revenue per customer and losing some customers. Basic supply/demand curve stuff. Again, those curves are not quite the same in a monopoly market, but iirc it still applies to an extent. If the monopoly really had total control, they would take the customers for everything they have, and it's not quite that bad.
:shrug: maybe the actual effect will be marginal. I'm not an economist either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There needs to be some law against dark patterns because nothing is enforceable anymore. I'm not sure what can be done but I know that the death of our society is due to people/companies that are using loop holes and all sorts of tricks to game the system and undermine basic trust. It used to be that these "tricks" were used only sparingly but as more and more bad actors engage in this type of behavior it only makes…
What you are describing is a form of race to the bottom, if all you competitors (in business or life generally) get ahead and away with behaving unscrupulously the only rational course is to behave unscrupulously. What is particularly tragic is that all it takes to get this rolling is the perception that others are doing something and people will move to follow. Campaign attack adds, lying about diesel emissions, doc…
This won't solve everything, but would be a nice start. There will always be scoundrels, but the current market dynamics seems to be pretty good at making manipulative and dishonest behaviour successful. We need to work on corrections that would promote honest businesses instead.
As a secondary avenue, I wish we could somehow have a cultural shift. "Dark patterns" isn't a new phenomenon; its very name has been a commonly-known term for years now. And yet, instead of avoiding them, most successful companies seem to look at them as sources of inspiration. Hell, they're becoming a part of "UX standard practice" these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't understand the extreme hostility to data collection and data markets. No one likes ads, but no one wants to have to pay a subscription fee to every single site on the internet. If I'm going to see ads, I'd rather them be something I might potentially find useful than something irrelevant. If I end up buying their product, the exchange is mutually beneficial and both parties walk away with value from th…
All of the following is my opinion only. > I really don't understand the extreme hostility to data collection and data markets. I can easily explain my extreme hostility to this: that it happens without my consent and that companies put so much work into actively evading the defenses I put up against it. > No one likes ads This isn't about ads. This is about data collection. If ads existed without the spying, I would…
I'm sympathetic to the fact that "don't use services that track you" is easier said than done, but all the same, you do have that option.