[treis]

I think the privacy angle is misguided. Most people don't really care about it. Even moreso for stuff like what songs did I listen to on Spotify.

The better angle is that we're becoming digital serfs. Google decided that they didn't want Google Music to exist anymore and poof went my listening history and playlists. Any service that I use today can do the same thing. If that data were stored somewhere I had access to I could have imported it in to Spotify.

This is an area I think Amazon or CloudFlare could step into. Sell consumers a NAS type box that keeps their data local. Sell companies on Lambda/Workers @ Home and have their applications run on that NAS.

[monksy]

> If that data were stored somewhere I had access to I could have imported it in to Spotify.

At the moment we've been pushing services in the wrong direction to create their own schemas. However, we may win back control with standards on this one.

But yes, the idea is that you are able to remove the control they have over the data you've produced. It's such a terrible arguement to claim they own the data. (Also, why do they need to control that other than to try to prevent you from leaving)

[cxr]

People do care about privacy, it's just that they have Snapchat-style privacy concerns, not the hypothetical ones that technologists tend to talk too much about. You're right that people don't care about YouTube having access to their stuff; they care about people having it—people like Regina, or their manager (or Regina, their manager). The whole "digital serfdom" concept is as abstract of a concern (and in the minds of many, as irrelevant) as the classic surveillance capitalism arguments that you're putting down, even if the digital serfdom concept is accurate. People just don't care about anything that isn't an immediate concern.