Live data from Hacker News

23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

stackdiary.com

231–240 of 252 posts

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Blacks" is a term with very little basis in genetics. What do you think the bioweapon will target? "Jews" is less diverse, but it's not like there's a single "I am Jewish" marker. Just look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews to see how difficult is it, with overlaps to other populations, and the need to correlate multiple haplogroups. How do you put all that detection machinery into a bioweapon…

> ... Yes, such a weapon will never be very precise. But since no weapon ever is (collateral damage) that doesn't mean it won't be used. > And how do you prevent the bioweapon from mutating that specificity away? You don't. But even that won't stop such a weapon from being used. Every weapon that man kind has been able to envision and create has been used. Not a single exception.

You have presumed that this sort of DNA-targeting bioweapon could exist. We have lots of pie-in-the-sky weapon ideas that haven't been developed, like the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile. Why are you so sure that this bioweapon isn't yet another one of those?

Setting that aside, the hydrogen bomb has not been used as a weapon, only a deterrent.

Same for the neutron bomb (an "enhanced radiation weapon").

And nuclear depth bombs ("All nuclear anti-submarine weapons were withdrawn from service by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States in or around 1990.[citation needed] They were replaced by conventional weapons such as the Mk 54 Torpedo that provided ever-increasing accuracy and range as anti-submarine warfare technology improved." says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_depth_bomb ).

"The United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories weaponized anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, Q-fever and others.[51] ... In 1969, US President Richard Nixon decided to unilaterally terminate the offensive biological weapons program of the US, allowing only scientific research for defensive measures." says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare .

Have all those weaponized organism really been used as a weapon? Not to my knowledge.

These all sound like exceptions.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#232
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... the owner of the social network cannot resell data to a third party)." Not sure I understand. Social media operators do not sell data. They provide access to computer users, acting like a Trojan Horse. ("Our app is installed on millions of phones. Millions people use some individual's website to communicate with each other." Zuckerberg, Musk, etc.) Perhaps "resell" refers to when social media companies buy data.…

they don't sell it, they share it. for example, I don't believe using google analytics or using a facebook badge is selling data, but it is sharing it.

What is a Facebook badge.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#233
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re pretty fond of disclaiming obligations and not being sued in real courts, though. The key thing is recognizing that most of the libertarian media exists to serve the funders’ interests, not to promote a coherent ideology.

What media is seen as holding a libertarian ideology? That is not a common bias. I do see the "consumers should have more choice" bent that you seem to be talking about more prevalently, but that's something quite different.

There’s a pipeline you can see when they’re workshopping ideas where things start at some think tank or other very openly ideological organization and moves through Reason, TNR, Fox, on to the WSJ and NYT where at each level the issue is pitched as more of a “lots of people are talking” kind of phenomenon detached from the source.

A really good example of this happened a decade ago when you started seeing these public reconsiderations where an NYT oped or someone on a Sunday news show was asking whether Rachel Carson was responsible for increased numbers of Africans dying from malaria. If you didn’t follow it before then, it looked like an organic discussion reconsidering whether an environmental success has unintended consequences.

If you had followed it, however, it was actually funded by the tobacco companies as part of an attack against public health agencies. They started with places like their lobbyist’s blog, got traction in the libertarian / right-wing blogosphere, then Reason, then the unabashed right-wing media, etc. until the more mainstream media felt the need to cover this story “everyone” was talking about:

https://www.wired.com/story/ddt-battle-scientific-skepticism...

https://web.archive.org/web/20080517020543/http://www.prospe...

It’s not uncommon to find that cycle behind “runaway government” news stories where the mainstream coverage doesn’t mention that someone’s full-time job was pitching that story to reporters.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what will that achieve?

If you drink a cup of coffee and say "this is too hot for me!", what will that accomplish? Nothing, as it's a judgement and not an action. We may act on a judgement though, let the coffee cool down, or avoid dealing with the unethical company.

But you avoiding the company doesn’t prevent the company from infringing on your dna privacy if a family member submits theirs.

My point is, until legislation changes, it will get worse before it gets better and misdirected anger won’t achieve a valuable outcome.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do not have broad-spectrum anti-cancer therapeutics, much less ones which are based on self-reproducing communicable organisms that target the cancer's DNA. If I'm wrong, what are you thinking of?

Therapeutics which prompt the endogenous immune system to recognize the cancer cells as something to attack. I believe this is the basis of mRNA cancer therapeutics? I believe they are targeted for individual cancers and possibly individual people, but given the speed in which they can be made this doesn't seem like a major future hurdle. Throw one into a gene therapy vector and it could conceivably reproduce itself…

"I believe" and "conceivably" do not make good evidence that something is in the pipeline.

mRNA cancer therapeutics do not target nuclear DNA. They do not enter the nucleus and they produce proteins to trigger an immune response against the targeted disease, not against the DNA of the targeted disease.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therapeutics which prompt the endogenous immune system to recognize the cancer cells as something to attack. I believe this is the basis of mRNA cancer therapeutics? I believe they are targeted for individual cancers and possibly individual people, but given the speed in which they can be made this doesn't seem like a major future hurdle. Throw one into a gene therapy vector and it could conceivably reproduce itself…

"I believe" and "conceivably" do not make good evidence that something is in the pipeline. mRNA cancer therapeutics do not target nuclear DNA. They do not enter the nucleus and they produce proteins to trigger an immune response against the targeted disease, not against the DNA of the targeted disease.

You're misinterpreting my initial objection. Skunkworkers would care less about the personal ramifications of keeping technology which could be used to cure cancer secret if there are already viable full-cure treatments for all of the cancers they or their family members may plausibly come down with.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I believe" and "conceivably" do not make good evidence that something is in the pipeline. mRNA cancer therapeutics do not target nuclear DNA. They do not enter the nucleus and they produce proteins to trigger an immune response against the targeted disease, not against the DNA of the targeted disease.

You're misinterpreting my initial objection. Skunkworkers would care less about the personal ramifications of keeping technology which could be used to cure cancer secret if there are already viable full-cure treatments for all of the cancers they or their family members may plausibly come down with.

Again, technology isn't in a vacuum. You really can't predict what medicine will be like in 100 years.

If there are already viable full-cure treatments for all those cancers then why aren't there viable full-cure treatments for this sort of bioweapon?

Feeling ill? Sequence all the organisms in your blood, spot the unexpected ones, develop a vaccine/phage against it, and poof - all better.

Sure, you can construct movie plot scenarios to do anything. In a movie, our hero can use a lighter to ignite the leaking fuel trail from a jet plane taking off and cause it to blow Up. That doesn't mean it's likely or even feasible.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#238
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is no longer true, I believe (starting Dec 1 2023). You can buy the vignette online starting immediately.

> This is no longer true, I believe (starting Dec 1 2023). You can buy the vignette online starting immediately If that's true then it's possible that Asfinag (the toll agency) haven't updated their website. On trying a test purchase just now to buy a two-month or annual pass it still states: "I'm a consumer Digital 2-month vignettes and digital annual vignettes purchased today are valid from 25.12.2023 at the earlie…

I was only partially correct. Looked again at asfinag and the grace period does not apply to 1 and 10-day vignettes. From their website:

"18-days-period Consumer protection is very important to us – especially as far as our digital products are concerned. Customers can withdraw from the online purchase of a digital vignette within 14 days. Taking into account a further three-day period for mail, your digital 2-months and annual vignette is only valid from the 18th day after purchase.

This deadline does not apply if you purchase a 1-day or 10-day vignette!"

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#239
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is no longer true, I believe (starting Dec 1 2023). You can buy the vignette online starting immediately If that's true then it's possible that Asfinag (the toll agency) haven't updated their website. On trying a test purchase just now to buy a two-month or annual pass it still states: "I'm a consumer Digital 2-month vignettes and digital annual vignettes purchased today are valid from 25.12.2023 at the earlie…

I was only partially correct. Looked again at asfinag and the grace period does not apply to 1 and 10-day vignettes. From their website: "18-days-period Consumer protection is very important to us – especially as far as our digital products are concerned. Customers can withdraw from the online purchase of a digital vignette within 14 days. Taking into account a further three-day period for mail, your digital 2-months…

> "18-days-period Consumer protection is very important to us"

Which is of course how you immediately know that it is not just unimportant to them but they will try to do anything to not have to abide by the rules and maliciously comply with anything they can't disregard completely.

Really the 14 days should start when you actually receive the item in a usable state and if the law actually allows these kind of workarounds around that then it should be changed.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#240
post #167
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". There are plenty of European countries which already have some laws like these. When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it. I am guaranteed to have a reasonable warranty. Companies cannot abuse my personal data without explicit con…

The problem as I see it is that the internet gives businesses the ability to operate globally, but having to be in specific compliance with different laws from every single country (or group like EU) is really challenging and in some cases the regulations are misguided (I think the rise of cookie consent banners is one of the crappiest things to happen to the internet as a user) And that does make it hard, especially…

> I think the rise of cookie consent banners is one of the crappiest things to happen to the internet as a user

Those have a simple compliant solution: Don't use more cookies (or other tracking) than you actually need to server the user.

Post reply on HN