[JumpCrisscross]

> before anyone asks, "personalized advertisements" is not a good reason

The good reason is growth. Our AI sector is based on, in large part, the fruits of these data. Maybe it's all baloney, I don't know. But those are jobs, investment and taxes that e.g. Europe has skipped out on that America and China are capitalising on.

My point, by the way, isn't pro surveillance. I enjoy my privacy. But blanket labelling personal data as radioactive doesn't seem to have any benefit to it outside emotional comfort. Instead, we need to do a better job of specifying which data are harmful to accumulate and why. SSNs are obviously not an issue. Data that can be used to target e.g. election misinformation are.

[thfuran]

So you're saying it's all vastly valuable and that's why it is right that it is taken without consent or compensation?

[JumpCrisscross]

> it's all vastly valuable and that's why it is right that it is taken without consent or compensation?

No, I'm saying it's a common with a benefit to utilisation. A lot of discussions around data involve zealouts on both sides. (One claiming it's the god-given right to harvest everyone's personal information. The other acting like it's the crime of the century for their email address to be leaked.)

[rockskon]

See - your problem is you think you're talking to politicians, Facebook-era journalists, disinfo activists.

Most people here have thought more about the the topic of privacy in the modern era far more than what some 70 year old politician has.