[thesausageking]

You cut off the next sentence of the quote:

> The idea really was, well, we should do that. Instead of relying on Stanford or Harvard or Pfizer to go and solve a disease or how to be healthy, we the people, we can do it.

When you use language like "we the people", users assume they'll be part of it. Not that Anne will be monetizing their data years later.

I also doubt many consumer read this interview or had any idea their data would be used this way. Maybe it's their fault for not reading the ToS carefully enough, but it's pretty hard for most people to really understand a ToS and also think about how the data could be used in the future.

[dnissley]

Do you think most people would have an issue with their data being used in this way? I think only a very small minority of folks would -- and they're exactly the kind of person who would avoid this service from the get go.

[timmytokyo]

Except that this kind of person is related to other people who might have different views on such consent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT18KJouHWg

[cblconfederate]

In her defense, regulators made it impossible for "we the people" to use that data otherwise.

[mbesto]

> When you use language like "we the people", users assume they'll be part of it.

Pedantically, yes "we the people" are part of it - we gave the company our DNA sample. Not sure what you're trying to say?