[ABCLAW]

To the extent that the individual and the marketer's interests are not aligned, the harm is borne entirely by the individual. It doesn't matter if the intention is to harm the individual; a blatant disregard for their interests accomplishes the same thing at scale. Not caring about what occurs to the individual means that systemically decisions will be made at their detriment.

Get put in a filter bubble? Have your government track you for protesting? Get on the wrong side of grey market price discrimination? Have your access to data and websites revoked?

Parties to a transaction that have no power don't come out ahead.

[Supermancho]

>> The reason is to hurt you and it's unfortunate that we're in denial about it.

> To the extent that the individual and the marketer's interests are not aligned, the harm is borne entirely by the individual. It doesn't matter if the intention is to harm the individual

Of course it does. That's the claim. Don't bring up tangential subjects and then try to associate them as if it's a rephrasing.

[neolog]

GP is saying disregard for the population's interests (plural "you") is equivalent to intending to harm many individual "you"s.

[horsawlarway]

I agree that intent matters, but lack of intent is not a get out of jail free card.

There's a reason both murder and manslaughter are crimes.