💾 Archived View for privacy.flounder.online › article_doublestandard.gmi captured on 2022-04-29 at 15:11:39. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Many people choose to publish their content on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter or other commercial platforms. Their business models are heavily based on user data collection. Users who choose to open YouTube or other similar website choose to accept website’s terms of use. That’s a contract. Users can close the website if they don’t like the terms of service. Nobody forces users to use YouTube for cat videos. That’s completely individual choice.
Many people think this is wrong. But let me be clear: the point of this writing is not about legitimacy of different e-business models. The point here is that “privacy community” uses double standard. It goes like this:
(1) Platform X is evil, because of user data collection and targeted marketing. It should be changed. They shouldn’t make money that way.
Well, let’s consider the following:
(2) Person A who opposes Platform X’s e-business model makes content on that platform and earns money by doing it. The person thinks he is not guilty of anything or at least not as guilty as the Platform X despite the fact he is also profiting from the evil business model.
And there it is. If commercial platforms are morally wrong when they make money with user data, how is it morally okay for “privacy people” to use that very same demonized platform to make profit for themselves? If one thinks people are wrong when they make money by doing X, one can’t participate activity X and say he is not guilty. Don’t judge other people for taking “evil money” if you’re also doing it. “But I have to make money somehow, I’ve deserved it!” may be the counterargument here, but it’s fallacy called “Two wrongs don't make a right”.
One might argue there could be a middle ground solution. It goes like this: If the same content is distributed both on Platform X and privacy-friendly platform Y, privacy damage will be “compensated”. But it wont be. The same underlying arguments are still there: (1) Person A thinks Platform X is evil and (2) person A is participating it. By adding a new platform Y wont change the aforementioned facts. Evil money isn’t more acceptable if one gives some of it to charity. It’s still evil money even if one gives 99% of it away. Example: Think about a robber who robs small corner shops, because others do it too - but he thinks he’s better than others, because he donates most of his money to charities. Real hero? No. That’s lazy person’s thinking, full of contradictions.
The contradiction has to be removed.
A) Stop distributing content on evil platforms if you think they are evil. Start distributing content primarily on privacy-friendly platforms (Gemini maybe?). If you need to make money, use your creativity.
B) Stop using the argument (1) and continue using commercial platforms.
The same principle applies to internet users (consumers) too. One should prefer privacy channels/chats/forums/authors/etc who follow certain principles. If users see YouTube content creators who use that contradictory thinking and keep publishing videos, users should ask about it in the comment section: “Why are you here if you think this platform is evil?”
____________________________
Last updated: 17.9.2021