[endisneigh]

privacy is important but the article is strange because all of the things described can be opted-out of. in the case of Telly you are explicitly trading off privacy in order to receive a free product. don't consume if you don't agree.

there are certain situations in which you might be OK with the privacy implication. I, for example, would be OK with receiving a free car ride if I had to watch an advertisement while traveling in the vehicle.

a better example would be something like being fingerprinted at the airport. Where it is not strictly necessary in order to accomplish the goal of security. In general I would say Big Government is more concerning than Big Tech. Is it unfortunate that Meta and Google track you across the internet? Sure, but it's ultimately not necessary for your participation in society, unlike say being tracked in order to get a state identification card, and thus do basic things like get a bank account.

[BaseballPhysics]

> Is it unfortunate that Meta and Google track you across the internet? Sure, but it's ultimately not necessary for your participation in society

I'm honestly astonished by this claim.

For many the products provided by Meta and Google--Facebook, Whatsapp, Gmail, WeChat, etc--are deeply important to their lives. These tools are the way people connect and communicate with friends and families, conduct business, and in general navigate the world.

It is becoming damn near impossible to avoid their prying eyes. And I know. I've tried.

So, I'm sorry, no, I completely disagree with your claim.

Is "Big Government" surveillance a concern? Yes. Absolutely.

But private company surveillance is every bit as concerning, every bit as difficult to avoid, and far harder to control (after all, I don't get to elect who runs Facebook).

[endisneigh]

Those examples you gave inherently must track you in order to function. I'm talking about accessory cases, e.g. "Facebook pixel." That case is problematic, but also easy to avoid - don't go to sites that for example use Facebook comments.

Fundamentally though, even if you are tracked by Facebook you being banned on Facebook isn't going to stop you from living your life. If that is the case then that is indeed problematic.

We will have to agree to disagree. I care about surveillance only to the extent that if the person doing has the ability to stop my participation in society. To that extent Meta cannot do much damage (to me at least).

[BaseballPhysics]

> Those examples you gave inherently must track you in order to function.

No. They don't. What gave you that idea?

> That case is problematic, but also easy to avoid - don't go to sites that for example use Facebook comments.

Honestly, that you think it's that easy suggests to me you don't understand the topic well enough to have an informed opinion.

That's not a slight! That's actually a huge problem with the debate, as few people truly understand the issues well enough to have a fully informed opinion on the topic.

[endisneigh]

> No. They don't. What gave you that idea?

Yes they do. How could Google serve you email without knowing what your email address is, for instance?

> Honestly, that you think it's that easy suggests to me you don't understand the topic well enough to have an informed opinion.

No, it's probably that I'm not as injected in the internet as you, probably. You can easily live a very full life and barely use the internet, let alone Facebook. This conversation reminds me of someone who told me that they need Discord to live. Just silly.

[BaseballPhysics]

> Yes they do. How could Google serve you email without knowing what your email address is, for instance?

There is no one who would describe that as "surveillance" and I'd expect you to know that.

Voluntarily divulging information in order to make use of a service is obviously completely fine.

Turning around and selling that information is not.

Augmenting that information with additional data from across multiple sources--whether that data is voluntarily or involuntarily divulged--is also not fine.

Buying and selling those augmented datasets, also not fine.

And that is what Meta, Google, and so many of these other companies do. That's what surveillance capitalism is.

> No, it's probably that I'm not as injected in the internet as you, probably. You can easily live a very full life and barely use the internet, let alone Facebook.

Frankly, that suggests to me you're the outlier, not me.

Facebook has nearly two billion worldwide daily active users.

WeChat is used every single day in parts of the world not just to communicate with people but to engage in basic daily commerce.

WhatsApp is the way countless individuals stay in touch with friends and family.

You might be oddly disassociated from big tech and the internet, and thus it may be very easy for you to have a cavalier attitude about surveillance capitalism.

Most folks absolutely are not.

[endisneigh]

> Turning around and selling that information is not.

Both Meta and Google do not sell your data. No point of continuing if the basics are wrong. Both companies also make it very explicitly clear how your data is used.

[jzb]

"Sure, but it's ultimately not necessary for your participation in society"

I'm going to push back on this. I've opted out of Facebook before when I was part of some active social groups, and known others who've done so. Opting out of these providers absolutely hampers participation in society, depending.

So many groups and activities require a Facebook account. If you're not there you miss out on discussions and maybe miss being invited to things altogether because "out of sight, out of mind."

At the minimum, not using these things introduces friction in participating in society. Whether they're necessary really depends on what you want your participation to look like and what you consider "society." For some people, it's very easy to cast off the Facebook chains because their social circles don't use Facebook.

But say you have kids and want to participate in a school parenting group or external activity and they've decided to organize things via FB. It's in or out. You aren't just making a choice for you now, it drags your spouse and kids into it too. Maybe your extended family.

And this is by design. Facebook absolutely designs its products to ensure that the maximum number of people must have accounts and that not having an account makes it difficult or impossible to participate or even observe content related to things.

Now, government tracking is harder to avoid and even more concerning, but let's not handwave away the impact people face if they refuse to use FB or Google. It is limiting for a large swath of people.

[Svarto]

I would argue that access and utilization of the internet is needed to participate in society. That is to say if we define "participate in society" beyond being alive and merely existing in close proximity to your neighbours, the internet is inescapable if you want to pay bills, stay up to date what is happening in your neighbourhood or have any chance of a decent living (e.g. a paying job).

[nunez]

This is ignoring the very very VERY possible reality of everyone and their dog signing up to get a free 55" TV.

They don't see a loss of privacy and a very easy conduit for constant surveillance; they see free TVs with a decent enough sound bar