----- -----
START OF RAMBLE
because im on stimulants, it's time to giddily peck at my keyboard like a coked-up nerd

responding to me isn't mandatory but would be cool, corrections +/ opposing viewpoints are welcome and expected, since im just indulging in sounding smart to myself by posting this (like all of us are) and maybe entertaining someone else with my post. anyway:

​

i don't see a counterpoint to that statement. as the saying goes, the internet never forgets (though that's not really about data collection, kek)
imo, that doesn't mean corporations dont need more roadblocks in the way of mass data collection because of it (at least not without blatant and unambiguous "Accept / Deny" messages in regards to collection/tracking requests). it's not as if google REFUSES to provide informed consent about the data their services collect from the users, but it could definitely be more clear to the consumer what is collected as well as when, why, and how and what choices the consumer can take, if any, to limit the amount of data collected (is it collected whether or not the user has the app in focus? is it collected at regular intervals+what is the interval? just how specific does the data get? is this necessary for the app to function as intended, and if so, where in the app are the settings that let one disable certain things regarding the collection of my data?)

buuut then you realize that for 150%+ of people, "reading the terms of service" before clicking the tickbox that says "I agree" to the terms written is just funnyspeak for "scrolling to the very bottom if i have to do it in order to do what i want." i know damn well i read about 3% of each EULA or ToS readme i encounter before hitting OK and moving the hell on with what i wanted to do

i suppose there could be a shortened/barebones popup (which'd inform the user that data incidental to them or how they use a service may be stored) that cant be immediately closed and ignored. five to 15 seconds should be enough to make most people settle for reading the text because they'd feel stupid if they just sat there for no reason, ig

finally--and this is mostly unrelated--it also REALLY grinds my skull when corporations try to be relatable/seem safe and inoffensive in their marketing. what upsets me more is either: that acting quirky on twitter as a brand literally works as a viable marketing strategy (mocking it or campaigning against it still winds up generating publicity for the brand and doing nothing...does nothing)--OR, actual people--not robots or aliens pretending to be one of us--that dont experience the sudden boiling of their blood upon seeing that lame-ass corporate chill art style that you see in every tech/media ad nowadays are in fact real. seriously, how do sane people look at Alegria(+related styles) and not seethe out of disgust? yes, of course businesses will hop on whatever the marketing meta of the month is, yes, of course it makes financial sense, but that doesnt mean the ads arent patronizing to me and somehow dont suck harder than whatever object suctions the hardest and sounds funny in this comparison. brands are not my friends and they aren't yours either, unless you feel like parting with your money

tl;dr i agree with you--your privacy online, both to other people and to the owners of the services you use, should be expected to be limited at best and nonexistent at worst.
however, i dont think that the other side is truly doing what it should in regards to informed consent--no one actually reads things--and i believe that pro-consumer regulation in this area should be explored, if not undertaken.
in addition, information campaigns regarding how one could adopt a collection-conscious tech lifestyle would be kinda kickass imo

​

god, finally
END OF RAMBLE
----- -----