[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.

[BaseballPhysics]

With respect to Meta and Google, fair enough. They collect vast troves of data themselves and then use it to monetize content on their platforms. That's still enormously problematic as a) it makes them juicy targets for data breeches (hence Cambridge Analytica), b) it makes them key players in state surveillance activities, and c) they could always change their policies in the future if the financial incentives are right.

But critically, they are far from the only players in the space, and it's the entire ecosystem that's problematic.