I put it to you - consider that you maybe wrong. That I indeed know what's best for me. The same way my default is that you know what's best for you. "Critical thinking" and "indoctrination" - you are on path to the dark side there. I grew up in a socialist/communist country. One of the ways in which vast majority of the population were oppressed, mis-treated etc or worse, was by them being denied agency and capability for critical thinking, for recognising their own interests, by a mechanism called "false consciousness". The ideas you expressed in your comment are of similar kind.
Says the person advocating for companies to get rid of consent, the bare minimum they can do when screwing over people for profit. That's not deciding what's best for you. That's you unilaterally deciding that no one deserves consumer protection. You are trying to force on everyone what 96% of people are opposed to [1]. So don't you dare pull off that DARVO nonsense and accuse me of being an oppressive dictator.
Also in what universe are utter fantasies like "'no one wants to share their data' is just assumed" or "the defaults are always 'deny everything'" true? Tech companies are bypassing user consent all [2] the [3] time [4].
See, this is what I meant by indoctrination. I showed you links containing dozens, maybe even hundreds of examples showing how companies don't obtain consent from users. But you ignore all that and cherry pick your highly exaggerated spin on the UK medical system. "I'm reasonably sure some people will have died because of this." Sigh, give me a break. Your take on privacy sounds just like the auto industry's take on right to repair. According to them, right to repair laws will get women raped in parking lots [1]. Corporate activists making absurd claims resorting to the same old fearmongering tactics.
This isn't me having problems with reading comprehension. It's you arguing in bad faith. Which is inevitable given your desire to demolish consumer protection for everyone. You're defending the indefensible.
I know indoctrination well. Reading what you write - I get the impression that you don't know much about indoctrination. But I don't know you, so I allow it that I maybe wrong. You asked "in what universe". I showed you concrete examples in one universe. For my claim to be true, one example suffices. None of your claims (latest "demolish customer protection") about my alleged intentions, character, thoughts, etc - have any basis in reality. You are wrong in almost everything that you wrote about me. It's all in your head, in your imagination. How do I know? B/c I know me, and you don't know me. That easy.
> Excellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't.
These are your exact words, not my imagination. You very clearly want consumer protection to be gone, because you said so.
> For my claim to be true, one example suffices.
To be clear, your claim is that we live in a world where there's too much privacy protection. So much in fact that you're, gasp, "reasonably sure some people will have died because of this." Nope, a single spin on the UK medical system is nowhere near as sufficient for that absurd claim.
As for your attempted word lawyering about indoctrination? Classic.
Yes - my data, not your data. You stay away from my data. I stay away from your data. I don't care about your data. But I do want them to train on my data. And to serve me better. Was disappointed that they didn't do that already.
But now you gave me ideas. ;-) Yeah - I think ideally we should go further, much further. Internet was not built by po-faced, lemon-sucking prudes, tut-tut-ing about everything and anything. It was built by happy-go-lucky, live-and-let live, altruistic mildly autistic nerds. It was permission-less, one didn't need to ask anyone in order to do anything, and that's why it lived. Whereas many other networks and protocols, technically more sophisticated, but with a fatal flaw that a gatekeeper with the power to say "NO" was built into them - just died off. Wish people went back to the original permission-less Net. That people tore down all manner of laws making moving bits around illegal, used to jail humans for crimes of reading, copying and writing data.
You should read "the cuckoos egg", written by a happy go lucky nerd in the 80s dawn of network systems. Already there were bad actors in the system and he fought an uphill battle to implement network security. You're already standing on the shoulders of giants like him who saved the net -- i don't believe it could survive without a robust permission structure.
