this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
264 points (93.1% liked)
Games
16755 readers
514 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lmfao ad hominem doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Again, you should read more carefully, because I didn't even call you an asshole - I said you were acting like one, after detailing the exact behaviour I was criticising.
I've not been vague, either. I've been very detailed and specific. If anything, I should try to be more concise.
Yes, it is pretty much industry standard. That doesn't mean it is right or acceptable. Data collection is a big problem all over - value is being taken from every one of us with no due consideration (ie payment). We're led to believe that our data is near worthless, so much so it isn't worth the hassle of getting paid, but this is a lie told to us by the very companies that collect it for free and make enough profit from it to become some of the wealthiest businesses in the world. And that's not something I've heard on the internet, those are my own thoughts on the matter.
In any case, I'm off out now, so I'm happy to leave it as we agree to disagree.
That's not the deal that's offered. The two things are separate, it is not a straightforward exchange. They make out to customers that it's like a payment, when in reality it isn't, per the wording of their contract. If it was it would be proportional, and what they take would be front and centre instead of tucked away hidden in the terms, which themselves obfuscate the full extent of what they're collecting.
There's your problem. You're using their numbers and jumping to the easy conclusion they're directing you towards. Furthermore, the data they collect has far more value than just advertising.
And even if it was pennies a year, that's still value that every one of us is owed. They operate in this weird niche, where they know that if they paid a fair price for user data they wouldn't be able to raise their product price in line, so their profits would go down. But the only reason they're profiting so much is because that extra value rightfully belongs to the person who created the data.
The person who makes nuts and bolts doesn't know how to build everything with it, yet you can't build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts. They aren't paying for our nuts and bolts.
Where did I mention content creators? I'm talking about user data. Users are the creators of the data, businesses just collect it, they do not create it.
That isn't the deal presented. An ordinary deal is "you give me x, I give you y" and then everything else is in the terms and conditions. This is like "come in for free!" and then everything is tucked away in the terms and conditions. It's deceptive from the outset.
To take an example of how this is wrong, with insurance courts have ruled that they must have a "key facts" page at the front of the policy, giving an overview of the key limitations and what they expect. Websites do not do this. Obviously the courts haven't yet ruled like this for websites (the cookie splash screen does not explain things in plain English), but then it always takes a long time for law to catch up with what is objectively "right", if they ever do.
The data collection that websites do is objectively wrong, and flies in the face of the core principles of contract law, on which all trading is based.
What's truly baffling is why you support having value taken from you.
Edit: Also, I feel the need to point out the difference in tone from each of us trying to end the conversation. I offered an olive branch, to meet in the middle, meanwhile you did it in a an obnoxious and shitty way. So again, I'm not calling you an asshole, but you sure as hell behave like one.