Wikipedia submissions are good for extremely obscure things.
Moreover, a bunch of fully for-profit companies are living off of exclusively selling privacy. Their only reason to exist is protecting their customer's information. Think ProtonMail, Tutanota, TunnelBear, privacy.com, the Mozilla Foundation (to a certain extent), Qwant, DuckDuckGo, and so on and so forth.
I very much preferred the previous term: "Government Surveillance". As some other comments on this page also pointed out, this loss of privacy comes with the benefit of productivity and reduced friction, while government surveillance rarely ever has a positive side to it (except catching criminals, and even so at the expense of non-criminals' privacy).
I think we have bigger issues than Facebook knowing what web articles we read, honestly.
I would prefer the term privacy prostitution or data prostitution. You sell your privacy in exchange for getting "free" search, "free" news, "free" maps, "free" email. Of course such services cannot be free of cost.
Traditionally Germany had a law that you are not allowed to give "gifts" when selling something. So when offering a car they were not allowed to give a "free" grill or something like that. The goal was to protect consumers from intrasparent pricing and unfair business practices. Some market-liberalist politicians abandoned the law many years ago, because consumers are "mature enough" to make their own decisions.
So how many consumers decide to pay for the internet services they use instead of being tracked?
Not only don't I believe that's ever the case, but when you sign up and pay, they can get some additional details from you that they weren't able to collect on their own.
Relatively few? Those services are available for people who want to pay for them.
Personally, I use Gmail, Facebook, and a litany of other free services. I'm fine with the exchange.
Are you accusing me of not being mature enough to make this decision?
So, yes the current model is cheaper for me. Still, I would prefer a world where you pay for what you use without all the tracking and adtech. Selling a lot of useless crap just ruins the planet and makes our life worse in the long term.
Ad blocker is never about blocking the ads themselves since five years ago or so. Since then, the point is always to block tracker and fingerprinter scripts in the ads (sometimes these scripts are almost malicious ) to reduce the information collected by advertisers (and abusers of the ads system) while browsing the web. I actually miss the plain old banner ads without shenanigans, they need to come back.
Of course, once a considerable mass of people started using the internet, these 'plain' browser ads started taking up more screen space than the content itself.
Thankfully Carbon Ads seem to be pretty friendly and non-intrusive (only an image with text is allowed, and I don't think I've seen any GIFs) so I have them whitelisted in UBO.
You have that available to you! You can pay for Protonmail or a variety of other email services.
Facebook is a more interesting case, because what you're really asking is for your friends to make the decision to pay instead of be advertised to. They get to have a choice, no? I always feel a little creeped out by sentences that start with "I would prefer a world where..." and end with, basically, everyone does what I want.
A lot of people seem to think caveat emptor is good for society, but clearly it is consumer hostile.
It’s called “surveillance capitalism” because companies are capitalizing on selling people’s data. It differentiates it from government surveillance.
> So even early on in the theorizing of capitalism it was understood that capitalism takes on different market forms and different eras in the context of different technologies. We’ve had mercantile capitalism, and we’ve had factory capitalism, and mass-production capitalism, and managerial capitalism, financial capitalism. And typically what happens in these new concepts is that modifier, like “mass production,” or in my case “surveillance” capitalism, what that modifier is doing is pinpointing the pivot of value creation in this new market form.
I'd rather have neither, but I trust my government more than corporations. Corporations will continuously try to break the law, and work around it. The government will perhaps do this as well, and a danger is when they're being pwned by the chains of another government. However, that could also be done by corporations. Crypto AG, was a corporation on a leash by USA/Germany secret services.
but the word has a specific and precise definition despite peoples' ignorance of it.
The problem I had with the critique is that the answer to surveillance capitalism always seems to be a return to privacy. Big Business is to big, we need to claim data autonomy,be democratic, and so on.
I think the reason why surveillance capitalism is so successful is because people actually like the automation and transparency. There's always this "wake up sheeple" element to the critique that in my opinion just doesn't address the fact that people simply value the utility they gain out of these tools higher than privacy. I think the better way forward is to align the interests of end consumers and business rather than attempting to retreat back into private spaces.
Exactly. I bet if Facebook offered a paid, ad-free version of their service, 99.9% of people would not use it. The monetary value of Facebook is $0 for most people.
(I still have to read her book.)
They pay with their privacy, but the payment is not at all transparent. In a way, it already happened: if you upgraded to Windows 10 for free back in the days (before GDPR), you paid with your privacy. If you use Android instead of iOS, you have a cheaper device, but you pay with your privacy. The Apple tax is high in a lot of countries. Too high for the masses. In essence, an iOS device is a status symbol that you paid with money instead of your privacy.
And I think that's a perfectly okay choice to make. I don't know why I shouldn't pay with my information, given that I'm aware of it. I'm fine with having an android phone and using the few hundred bucks I save on something else.
My information has some value, and by trading that information to a company that provides me with a service I get something out of it. If I keep data private that I don't mind sharing and instead would say, pay with cash, I'd lose out on getting some value out of my data.
Now I think there is an interesting discussion to be had if users could organise to leverage the value they get out of their data, people have talked about a sort of 'data union' to collectively bargain for a higher return, but in principle I don't mind using my data as a currency.
in my experience with internet comments people often say this to pander. so: could you elaborate?
Transparency of data use is important, but simply saying people don't know isn't going to help. It seems like people want to shove transparency of data use in everyone's face until no one uses that software anymore. What is the win in this situation?
All that being said if we’ve learned anything from software messages is that no one will ever read them. We trained ourselves 25 years ago blindly dismissing nonsense error messages on windows.
Some of us insist you can have these "services" without sacrificing privacy.