b3nsn0w @ b3nsn0w @pricefield.org

banner pic is [With You by Artkitt-Creations](https://www.deviantart.com/ar

---

Read more

Posts

816

Comments

399

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Where exactly is the coercion here? The choices in order to maintain a Facebook account you either pay a fee or let them use your data to advertise to you.

right there. you're a parody of yourself lmao.

a facebook account cannot simultaneously hold enough value that it's worth compromising your privacy for and not hold value so that the threat of taking it away is not coercion. the enemy cannot be both strong and weak at once. the only way to resolve this dichotomy is to posit your privacy itself holds no value and is therefore a fair price to pay for something that also holds no value, but that's just absolutely ridiculous to begin with.

you also had your answers to your questions about which part should be illegal, multiple times. to then ask the same questions again because you "don't see it", playing dumb like that, is just manipulative. why are you so dead set on corporate bootlicking?

she'd totally be the one who tears off the top polarizer layer from a monitor and sticks it into her glasses (like this)

i wish the eu could stop fucking around on this one. fines for gdpr violations can reach up to 20 million euros or 4% of global revenue, whichever is higher. if they actually prosecute over this, it will be far more than a slap on the wrist. (which is why everyone was so scared of the gdpr back in 2018, but apparently that didn't really last)

genocide doesn't just mean murder, it means destruction of a people, which can be done by destroying identities even without killing the people behind those identities. i don't think it's inaccurate.

said other poster is actively advocating for a form of conversion therapy, just on little kids instead of adults, while questioning whether trans people are even real or just a delusion. if you hang around literally any oppressed group you'll see this "well-educated genuine concern" and conditional support rhetoric all the time. it's veiled bigotry, nothing more.

no, ever since 2018 when the gdpr actually went into effect, they had to allow users to opt out of data processing individually for different purposes. like, if you want to allow facebook to process your data for improving their site but not for marketing purposes, you need to be able to set that, and facebook needs to respect that. as such, you had the option to use the site without "paying for it with your data" at all.

and if that's not a viable business model and they need to charge a subscription fee, that's alright. there's nothing in the gdpr that says you cannot charge for services. the problematic part here is that they do provide a free service but only if you consent to data processing. like i said, i'm not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure that's illegal, and it absolutely should be illegal. if they decide to provide a free tier (or a paid tier for that matter), it needs to be available even if you don't consent for unrelated data processing. they're not obligated to provide anything, but if they do provide something, they cannot discriminate against users who don't want to share their data.

that's the problematic bit here. privacy cannot be a premium feature. facebook is trying to charge for something here that should be available to all users, whether or not the underlying product is freely available or not.

then don't host the site if they don't want to. or charge people for shit if they want to. i'm not asking for them to not do that, i'm asking for one thing and one thing only: don't make service, free or not, conditional to consenting for data processing not related to providing that service. that shit, to my best knowledge, is illegal in the eu, and it's for a damn good reason.

facebook is not entitled to a profit either just because they're for-profit. they need to earn it. and no, they don't have a right to take a "whatever means necessary" approach on it -- just like a company cannot legally rob people, or cannot legally entice minors into gambling addictions to make that money, in the eu it also cannot coerce people into giving up their personal data just so it can then profit off of that either. consent for that needs to be given willingly, without pressure, and without deception. why is this principle so hard to understand?

you paint some ridiculous strawman arguments here in your efforts to lick the zuck's boots, but i never once asked for facebook to continue giving their service for free if they don't want to. the only thing i said is "paying with your data" is not a valid idea under the gdpr (and honestly, it shouldn't be a thing in any civilized country.) if facebook relies on it, tough shit, their options are to figure out an alternate revenue stream or go out of business. that's how it works for every other business as well.

have you considered that maybe covid just gave people some much needed time to sit back, relax, and recognize things about themselves?

this isn't rocket science. i get the shtick of the "enlightened" centrist but when one side just wants to exist and the other side wants a trans genocide the right answer isn't maybe a little genocide, as a treat. and if you don't know how to tell apart conflicting data about trans people, you'd do well to actually listen to them for once, as opposed to discrediting them as biased and "just one side".

then offer the subscription service as the only option. if they want to do that, it's on them. but you can tell by the dark pattern on this ui element that that's not their main goal, they just want to use the threat of having to pay to coerce people into consenting to data processing.

it's not about entitlement, it's about playing fair. removing the option to "pay with your data", and leaving only the subscription or cancellation as options would be fair play. it would also destroy facebook but that's on them, it's their decision to make. but if they decide to provide a free service of any kind, they cannot discriminate against those who wish to choose privacy.

and if we're being realistic, they're not expecting even 1% of their user base to pay. they are, however, expecting to keep nearly 100% of their user base. that's what makes this about coercion -- if they didn't have the option to coerce people (and i'm fairly sure they don't have it legally, but again, i am not a lawyer) the options presented would be very different, because facebook itself wouldn't be able to afford to only give its service to paid users. you'd probably have a free tier with optional privacy included, which is missing some features, or a paid tier with extra features and privacy included (hopefully non-optionally, but it's facebook so they'd probably still try to track you).

flair, mostly. lol

deposing that far-right israeli leadership would be the first step toward fixing this whole mess. many israelis (around 75%) want netanyahu gone immediately after the war and it seems like their approval ratings have gone down as a result of this conflict, in contrast to the general trend of right-wing governments benefiting from war in most situations.

if the west can put pressure on israel (and that it can, without american weapons most of the surrounding muslim countries would love to genocide the hell out of israel), this is where that pressure needs to go. finish the war, get hamas out of at least the government of gaza (fully disbanding them will be a longer process, but at least don't put them in control), and then execute a regime change in israel as well. get rid of both governing parties that caused this mess to begin with and then their successors can hopefully actually work towards peace.

you mean fork him under a new maintainer?

youtube only makes around 2€ per user per month by the most optimistic estimates, and they serve full tv-like video ads which are also clickable and targeted, and a lot of them. that's literally the final form of advertising and it still doesn't reach a monthly 10€/user, the addressable market is just not that big.

the dark pattern is real though. they're going for your data and they're not doing it for money. make of that what you will (i certainly have ideas and they're not pleasant)

this has to be illegal.

like, no, seriously. i'm not a lawyer but i was working on a (since failed) startup in 2018 and distinctly remember how much headache the gdpr caused. literally one of the main things was that you cannot coerce users into consenting to data processing, or make features conditional to them. the gdpr makes a distinction between processing you do to perform a contract (that's why no one asks for your consent for processing your email address to log you in, that's implied) and processing you do for other reasons, which require user consent (that's why everyone asks if they can spam you on the same email -- it doesn't matter that your email address is already on their server, processing it for marketing reasons requires consent of the data subject). opting into these kinds of processing needs to be granular, if it's not they lose the validity of your consent.

i seriously hope facebook gets slapped so hard over this that no one ever thinks about doing this again. "paying with your data" should never be a thing in any society that calls itself civilized.

the number of measured sinister people (as in, left-handed, that's where the word comes from) were rising like crazy too when it started gaining cultural acceptance that maybe, just maybe it's not evil that you use your left hand to do things. it was like a whole epidemic, sinister people started popping up left and right.

...and then it plateaued at a flat 12.5% and stayed there since. turns out that's just the biological occurrence rate, but everyone was under-measuring it because people weren't willing to own it up that they're left-handed.

trans people are the same. you get different amounts of persecution for it between different time periods and different regimes, and you get different levels of acceptance in different age groups, but the level of persecution is not zero anywhere. it's not as normalized as just being a lefty. as such, the measured number of trans people is below the real amount in all of these situations, and how much below it is represents the amount of repression and persecution. we'll get accurate numbers for the occurrence rate of people born in the wrong bodies when the stigma is gone.

also, you seriously misinterpreted the medical issue. the issue isn't with the brain, it's with the body. you're not a pile of muscle with some neurons slapped on top of it, you're a brain piloting a meat suit, and if the meat suit is the wrong kind that's what needs to be corrected. and that correction is much easier to do before puberty than after. which is why you need to listen to trans kids and at the very least give them puberty blockers, or preferably adequate hormone therapy. but you can't "prevent" trans people unless you can detect and fix the issue in the womb.

i'm no expert in vexillology but even i can tell that that's a c- at best

i think we could have something really special here through international trade

yeah, an important clarification on that is i base my superhero stuff entirely on movies. i made a genuine effort to get into the comics but i just couldn't -- it might just be my luck but i've literally only read either canon or good stories from marvel and dc, nothing i tried managed to hit both. but for what it's worth, i presume the majority of people are the same way, comics just don't have the same degree of mainstream cultural penetration that movies enjoy.

i do agree with you though, clark is far more interesting than superman. i used to be an ardent superman hater specifically because the movie portrayals sucked and most online fans i interacted with were like "my fictional character could totally beat your fictional character" but i do really enjoy very human stories about the dude. and hell, sometimes his powered stuff can also be kinda cool -- but the same applies to captain marvel as well and that's usually the part that people don't like to accept.

he doesn't evade that criticism, but there aren't constant "scandals" around him regarding that. half the time you hear about captain marvel, it's someone criticizing her for being too powerful (sometimes with accusations of "wokeism" thrown in, but not always). nearly all the time you hear about superman, he's just there, it's a regular positive-ish portrayal you'd normally see around any character, with a bit of critique thrown in of course. that's the difference in scrutiny i'm talking about, the internet doesn't tend to blow up every time they make a superman movie the same way it blew up for captain marvel because god forbid we see a woman in the same position as supes.

(also, i suppose many of her critics were the same people who criticize stuff like female thor or black captain america by saying go make original heroes -- this is the treatment you get when you comply. underprivileged groups always get higher scrutiny, and it easily propagates to otherwise well-meaning people too.)

this is so interesting, we were just talking marvel today with my best friend and she pointed out captain marvel as one of her favorite mcu characters. and it's specifically because she's a strong female character who's allowed to be strong without being hyper-competent or incredibly cerebral or anything like that. she's just a woman who stands up for things and punches shit occasionally and is allowed to win through sheer brute force.

and yes, she's way too powerful in many of the same way as superman, which is a narrative defect, but i find it extremely hypocritical how much more scrutiny people point toward captain marvel on that, while superman continues to be one of dc's most popular heroes, despite marvel using her better than dc uses superman.

as an instance admin, regarding your profile picture: fuck you very much lmao