| based on your non-response to them, it sounds like you're conceding the following points: - google could harm people less by providing recourse to the people they harm, but instead chooses not to; - your suggestion that those harmed by google "just use another antivirus software" is irrelevant and doesn't apply here; - market forces would not, in fact, be involved here; - disabling Google's opt-out-only service is more than trivial for the average user; and - google exploits this non-triviality by making the service opt-out, vs opt-in with informed consent. > No amount of Google will stop an antivirus from doing the same without your consent. I wish this didn't need to be explicitly specified, but "someone else could harm people" isn't a defense for google actively harming people if that happened, and the antivirus company was in google's place, and they also failed to provide recourse to the people they were harming with their negative externalities, that would also be bad, just like it is now bad that google is actually doing it so, what exactly is your point here in trying to justify google harming people via negative externalities while at the same time totally failing to offer proper recourse to them, when google has the option of harming people less, and chooses to avoid that option? |
A statistical inevitability is a defense for something. The world doesn't have perfect things.
Stop trying to frame something bad just because it isn't perfect. If you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion.