black_bird's comments

If these options do not exist - which is not true - it is because there is not enough consumer demand. No one produces wine in an abstemious society for obvious reasons.

> "the free market will just fix everything" I think the market doesn't fix anything because there's nothing to fix in this case.

> you're not being given a representative set of available options...

What would those options be? Who decides that? For me the market does, who should do it for you? What I'm saying is simple, if there are more people who demand services that respect their privacy, then the offer of those services will arise. If, for example, we are in an abstemious society no one will demand wine, then it is foolish to try to produce wine under those circumstances. It will only be profitable to produce wine there if the preferences of that society change.

>"just give up all your data, it's fiiiinnne" I don't know. It may or may not be fine, you decide for you and I decide for me. I'm not going to force you to make a decision you don't want and I hope you do the same.

Anyway, it's silly to say that we can't have privacy on the Internet. My position is that we can have the services we want, privacy, security, with whatever preponderant factor we want to have, but not for free. You will pay with money, with personal data or whatever the other party accepts as payment, but you will always pay. All this discussion takes place only in contexts where there are people who think they can access all kinds of things for "free", who have the right to dispose of someone else's work, capital, time or property as they please.

Whether we like it or not, the market currently tells us that, in general, access to certain services is more valuable than consumer privacy.

Then you agree with me. Your preference is greater for "being in contact with someone" than your privacy or other factors. Case closed. Or are you saying that someone should force your family members to use another product that suits your personal preferences?

I'm with you. Again and again we see how certain conclusions and opinions expressed on this site presuppose a global knowledge about the preferences of other people. Regulators, planners and collectivists assume that what is bad for them must be bad for others, that what is good for them must be good for everyone and therefore "have" the right to force people to act as they think they should act according to their arbitrary criteria.

If "society" requires services with a greater emphasis on privacy, they will be more in demand and will find their corresponding offer in the marketplace.

>Why we can't have privacy on the internet... Bullshit. We can have whatever we want, but if I demand something I must offer something in return, be it money, private data or unicorns. There is no such thing as a free coffee.

There is no "we" in this. I would express it: >Why should "I" accept that privacy intrusions are okay?

As long as it's a voluntary business relationship, there's nothing to say. If your scale of preferences tells you that privacy is a more important factor than the service itself, then use the services that suit your demand, but don't prevent others from acting differently.

>If we as a society decide to limit how companies can collect and use our data...

Why? I don't have the right to decide for you. If you decide to get married, do I have the right to tell you how to proceed in your contractual relationship with your partner? As long as it is a voluntary contract and the individual rights of others are respected..., does the rest of society or the government have the right to decide or impose rules for you or your partner on how your association proceeds?

"Take it, leave it or shut up." If the concept of "privacy" is as important to society as it is to you, it will lead to an increase in demand and supply linked to services that incorporate greater privacy into their products. You don't need to do anything about it, but whatever you try to do in an arbitrary, subjective and coercive way, it will be objectively immoral and violent towards the rest of the people.

>Companies don't have a right to their business model. They have that right because we all have it, just as you have the right to plan your life but you don't have the right to plan someone else's life.

I don't know if it's sarcasm or not. Positions are dictated by empirical evidence, not feelings. What is false does not become true because I feel it is true. Free markets are efficient in terms of supply and demand. My opinion is that those who are still guided by feelings and always with their backs to reality are the people who ask for more socialism, more regulations and less freedom for all.

It's a moral argument. Any form of coercion that prevents the free lawful use of private property is an attack on individual freedom. No act can be considered lawful if it comes from an unlawful act. No individual or group of individuals may dispose of another individual's property without violating his rights, whether this property is a refrigerator or communications infrastructure. People in the United States asking for more socialism, regulations and abuses against private property should know that the Berlin Wall no longer exists.

It is an economic argument as well. Oligopolies based on regulations and government protectionism are always bad and monopolies arising from competition are always good because they offer what the demand demands and favor social cooperation. It must be understood that competition lies in the free entry and exit of markets and not in a utopian perfect competition from the neoclassical point of view. If there is only one ISP in your state or city, you should ask yourself if the government has given it the monopoly concession of the service through prior regulation. Regulations and interventions always require more regulations and subsequent interventions giving more rights to politicians and prebendary monopolists at the cost of taking freedom from the rest of the people, people who pay the benefits of these groups without getting anything in return.

Just think of all the regulations against free-speech that certain groups want to impose throughout the Internet. Which companies would be favored if these regulations on social networks were carried out? Of course they would favor big companies over small ones because you are artificially raising the competitive cost without improving the service. Cost that not all companies can afford. The moral argument in this case is self-explanatory.