191–200 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On behalf all the non-millionaires out there, Fuck You. Money took away your ethics and morals and broke your brain. A right to privacy should be something we strive for, not maximizing profit by spying on people. We do not have a free market in the US either.
> On behalf all the non-millionaires out there, Fuck You. Money took away your ethics and morals and broke your brain. Less of this, please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like open source software? Given how poorly people often treat maintainers, I think "entitlement" is precisely the correct word. Your point about charity is well-made. Though it may perhaps strain credulity to expect email services on a truly massive scale to be offered as non-reciprocal charity.
>Though it may perhaps strain credulity to expect email services on a truly massive scale to be offered as non-reciprocal charity. Or anything that requires any sort of non-trivial capital to do. Video hosting/streaming (eg. YouTube), social media, news reporting, etc. I'm guessing the person you're replying to doesn't do their full time job for free and just accepts donations from their employers, either.
Eh, this is a false dichotomy of one can either be charitable or transactional in the entirety of the interactions in their lives.
In other words, your guess happens to be correct (gainful employment is not a mathematical rarity after all) but still provides no counterargument.
OPs claim was expecting anything with value without transacting something back was entitlement. My counterargument was that there exists charity and non-transactionality in many contexts.
The condition of anything requiring non-trivial capital is also wrong. We often pool tax money to render capital and services for things we don’t have direct, personal use of. And I am not saying this is necessarily charity, after all it is an obligation, but most folks don’t go after the particular line items of how their money is spent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it is locally done, I find it hard to see what isn't too like. That is, if I open an email and it asks if I want to make a reminder or add it to my calendar, that is cool. When I see that several emails I have not opened are already on my calendar, I am less happy about it.
That can still be done locally, no? You don't have to open an email for the phone to retrieve its contents.
That said, I'd also assume that full emails are not sent to my device until I open them, unless I setup something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have a chat with people who aren't into computers and the internet. A huge percentage of them don't understand any of this (and don't even understand why they should understand).
Well, do they not understand, or are they indifferent? I suspect that many of us here confuse the latter for the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it is locally done, I find it hard to see what isn't too like. That is, if I open an email and it asks if I want to make a reminder or add it to my calendar, that is cool. When I see that several emails I have not opened are already on my calendar, I am less happy about it.
I don’t really see what’s different, honestly. They’re moving it from one system they control to another, big deal. Plus who says I even saw the original e-mail?
Sure, for many folks this will be fine. But it seems an unnecessary denial of service attack vector that needs more engineering to protect than makes sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do not, and should not, have a right not to be tracked. You should have a right to know if a given company wants to track you, and to decide if you want to still do business with them as a result. Similarly, they should have the right to know if you are going to block/evade tracking and be able to decide if they still want to do business with you as a result. This is how a free market works.
On behalf all the non-millionaires out there, Fuck You. Money took away your ethics and morals and broke your brain. A right to privacy should be something we strive for, not maximizing profit by spying on people. We do not have a free market in the US either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty simple - if its not profitable to run a service without spying on your users then it should simply not be run. That's it!
OK, that’s how you feel, and your choice. What do you think about people who wouldn’t mind being spied on in exchange for free or cheaper services? I’m personally with you, by the way, but I think it’s worth pointing out that it’s not the only valid position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On behalf all the non-millionaires out there, Fuck You. Money took away your ethics and morals and broke your brain. A right to privacy should be something we strive for, not maximizing profit by spying on people. We do not have a free market in the US either.
Please don't do this on HN. I don't want to ban you and we can't have this kind of thing here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If I'm buying gas, I'm being served ads via the little screen. The first time I saw that, my immediate reaction was to hit the screen. My second thought was to pour gas on it and light it on fire. I refuse to use any place that does this unless it is a last resort. It's not terribly common where I live (yet) but I assume it is becoming standard. It's enraging.
In my area, I have one option for fuel without ads. That's a place that has old analog pumps that still ding when the gallon dial rolls over. Obviously there's no pay at the pump. If that store goes under or decides to modernize, then I will effectively not have a choice to get fuel without ads. It's really frustrating. I want to let competition and the market sort it out, but when there's no variation in the options…