this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59672 readers
2851 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
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
All of it is a reason for people to vote not to allow it. This can be accomplished federally or via initiatives in states. If a handful states comprising 30-50% of the pop wont allow it then it will be dead.
Seems like forcing liability would be more successful
More successful or more beneficial?
Forcing the company to be liable for the data they collect would be more likely to stop them from doing it than trying to outlaw them collecting it
No it wouldn't because poor people can trivially be kept out of court all kinds of ways from binding arbitration to half assed enforcement. As a rule if you want someone to NOT do something you have to tell them they can't do it!
No it wouldn’t because elected officials don’t represent poor people
But we’re talking about buying new BMWs anyway. Your logic was just too stupid to not laugh at
The problem is there is no reason to suspect that a lucrative strategy doesn't spread to other manufacturers and indeed segments.
And it will be long established before it effects the poor
By which time it will be normalized. How about we fix it now.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/
So your previous argument was nonsense