[ewretgg]

I don't agree, but at least I understand where you're coming from. Here is the stasis of our dispute:

> I would argue most of these things make the world a better place not a worse place. And that people should be able to choose how they want to pay for those services.

I'm not convinced any of the apps we pay for in data really improve our lives. The price we pay in control over our identity and our information usually outweighs the benefits. And in some cases, like in many distracting social apps or pay-to-win games, there is no benefit. The app is just designed to addict us, keep us occupied, and make our lives worse.

Furthermore, I don't think "allowing users to decide for themselves" is going to make a difference. That's like allowing poison in food, because everyone can scan the ingredients on the label for known poisons. It's unreasonable to expect the average person to do due diligence on every service they use online.

[orangecat]

I'm not convinced any of the apps we pay for in data really improve our lives. The price we pay in control over our identity and our information usually outweighs the benefits.

Hundreds of millions of Google and Facebook users disagree. If you ask people what Google does with the data they collect, a large percentage both incorrectly believe that they directly sell it to advertisers (rather than just using it for ad targeting) and don't have a problem with that.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I am saying that you aren't so clearly right that your preferences should be forcibly imposed on everyone.

[guitarbill]

That's fine, the problem is there was no choice before. OK, Google Analytics is somewhat easier to block, but e.g. Facebook with their shadow profiles? How do you block that? Is it feasible to expect teenagers to not use FB/Snapchat/Instagram when all their friends are just to protect their privacy?

[ewretgg]

If the benefit users got was that great, I think people would pay for these services, if forced to.