So, they want to sell your browsing history

[westend1]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Anybody happy with this?

[baddog]

40 minutes ago, westend1 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Anybody happy with this?

Nope

[Englebert]

They've already been doing it for years, even with FCC regulations. I applaud Obama's attempt at controlling this, and the ones (mostly Republicans down party lines) should be removed from office in the next election, but there is a reason behind their votes.

The rationale from the Republicans is that tracking and selling consumer data allows for a revenue stream for the ISPs. If they were not allowed to have this extra revenue stream, they would be forced to raised internet service fees, thus dumping the higher costs on consumers instead of marketers. Many polls and surveys (not that I trust polls or surveys) have shown that consumers prefer enduring advertisements if it means lowered costs, rather than paying higher service costs while ensuring privacy, even though they say they want privacy.

I would prefer having a choice between companies...that is one company can maintain a policy that they ensure consumer privacy, but you have to pay more for the service, while another company can adopt a policy of selling consumer data while offering the services at a lowered costs. This has already been done, and consumers have overwhelmingly chose companies that use the latter policy, much to my chagrin. Thus pretty much every company has adopted this strategy.

Obama's regulation did not prevent companies from selling consumer data. Instead, it made the default option set to no on selling your data, and the company has to get your explicit approval. This is being rolled back by the Republicans to return to the default option of yes to selling your data, and the consumer has to explicitly opt out. I know from experience that opting out is not even an option. Sure you can contact the company and opt out, but it becomes your responsibility to maintain proof that you opted out. Thus to win a lawsuit against companies that skirt the law becomes very, very difficult, and the companies know this. Having the default set to no shifts the burden of proof back onto the companies, and therefore more open to lawsuits.

The Republicans are setting the standard to what consumers have shown they want. The Democrats prefer the standard to what the consumers say they want. I'll side with the Democrats on this issue, even though the majority of people have shown they will side with the Republicans.

[Tigers2010]

They don't want my browsing history.

[nappyroots]

23 hours ago, Englebert said:

They've already been doing it for years, even with FCC regulations. I applaud Obama's attempt at controlling this, and the ones (mostly Republicans down party lines) should be removed from office in the next election, but there is a reason behind their votes.

The rationale from the Republicans is that tracking and selling consumer data allows for a revenue stream for the ISPs. If they were not allowed to have this extra revenue stream, they would be forced to raised internet service fees, thus dumping the higher costs on consumers instead of marketers. Many polls and surveys (not that I trust polls or surveys) have shown that consumers prefer enduring advertisements if it means lowered costs, rather than paying higher service costs while ensuring privacy, even though they say they want privacy.

I would prefer having a choice between companies...that is one company can maintain a policy that they ensure consumer privacy, but you have to pay more for the service, while another company can adopt a policy of selling consumer data while offering the services at a lowered costs. This has already been done, and consumers have overwhelmingly chose companies that use the latter policy, much to my chagrin. Thus pretty much every company has adopted this strategy.

Obama's regulation did not prevent companies from selling consumer data. Instead, it made the default option set to no on selling your data, and the company has to get your explicit approval. This is being rolled back by the Republicans to return to the default option of yes to selling your data, and the consumer has to explicitly opt out. I know from experience that opting out is not even an option. Sure you can contact the company and opt out, but it becomes your responsibility to maintain proof that you opted out. Thus to win a lawsuit against companies that skirt the law becomes very, very difficult, and the companies know this. Having the default set to no shifts the burden of proof back onto the companies, and therefore more open to lawsuits.

The Republicans are setting the standard to what consumers have shown they want. The Democrats prefer the standard to what the consumers say they want. I'll side with the Democrats on this issue, even though the majority of people have shown they will side with the Republicans.

Anyone that believes that a political party cares more about the working, tax paying person than the folks throwing money at them or fools. Politicians pretend to care some at election time. Being a politician is a great gig if you have no problem with being dishonest. Was Obama honest, Is Trump honest?

Dems will say that Trump is worst and l pubs will say that Obama was worst. Would we choose an Airline that crashes the least or one that never crashes.

[Englebert]

15 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

Anyone that believes that a political party cares more about the working, tax paying person than the folks throwing money at them or fools. Politicians pretend to care some at election time. Being a politician is a great gig if you have no problem with being dishonest. Was Obama honest, Is Trump honest?

Dems will say that Trump is worst and l pubs will say that Obama was worst. Would we choose an Airline that crashes the least or one that never crashes.

Is there a reason you quoted my post to make this response? Are you trying to refute anything I posted?

And I'm finding it more and more odd on why you constantly complain about how corrupt the government has become, but yet advocate for bigger and bigger government with more control. Can you please explain that rationale? Do you think if the government gets big enough the politicians will suddenly turn into moral, wholesome, caring people, or would a bigger government just involve more dirtbag government officials? And is more dirtbag government officials better or worse for the country?

[nappyroots]

27 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Is there a reason you quoted my post to make this response? Are you trying to refute anything I posted?

And I'm finding it more and more odd on why you constantly complain about how corrupt the government has become, but yet advocate for bigger and bigger government with more control. Can you please explain that rationale? Do you think if the government gets big enough the politicians will suddenly turn into moral, wholesome, caring people, or would a bigger government just involve more dirtbag government officials? And is more dirtbag government officials better or worse for the country?

Helping poor creates bigger government,  but corporate welfare doesnt. 

[Englebert]

2 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

Helping poor creates bigger government,  but corporate welfare doesnt. 

So to clarify your answer...you have no answer.

[nappyroots]

8 minutes ago, Englebert said:

So to clarify your answer...you have no answer.

Start the name calling, just like your hero!

[Englebert]

5 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

Start the name calling, just like your hero!

Too easy. Exposing your flawed rationale is enough.

[nappyroots]

9 minutes ago, Englebert said:

So to clarify your answer...you have no answer.

Just don't think not partially funding meals on wheels creates smaller government.  The President is creating new government jobs for his family. Not to mention the cost of his wife and kids living somewhere else and all of the golf trips to mar logo.

[Englebert]

20 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

Just don't think not partially funding meals on wheels creates smaller government.  The President is creating new government jobs for his family. Not to mention the cost of his wife and kids living somewhere else and all of the golf trips to mar logo.

So creating two new jobs somehow equates to cutting thousands of jobs. You actually want to focus on two new ones? Really? And you didn't say a peep about all of the Federal jobs Obama created just to fund his cronies and campaign contributors. No, you want to disparagingly focus on Trump creating two, yes two, jobs. (And I'm not even sure if they're new positions.)

And why is Meals On Wheels being funded at all by the Federal government, you know, by those people that don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

Now get back on topic. How do you feel about companies selling your browsing history? Do you even have an opinion or will you write some other rant about how corrupt politicians are but want to give them more control over our lives?

[Tigers2010]

5 hours ago, nappyroots said:

Anyone that believes that a political party cares more about the working, tax paying person than the folks throwing money at them or fools. Politicians pretend to care some at election time. Being a politician is a great gig if you have no problem with being dishonest. Was Obama honest, Is Trump honest?

Dems will say that Trump is worst and l pubs will say that Obama was worst. Would we choose an Airline that crashes the least or one that never crashes.

I would love to hear your examples of Obama not being "honest".

[Tigers2010]

On 3/30/2017 at 7:57 AM, nappyroots said:

Anyone that believes that a political party cares more about the working, tax paying person than the folks throwing money at them or fools. Politicians pretend to care some at election time. Being a politician is a great gig if you have no problem with being dishonest. Was Obama honest, Is Trump honest?

Dems will say that Trump is worst and l pubs will say that Obama was worst. Would we choose an Airline that crashes the least or one that never crashes.

Still waiting for one of your examples of Obama dishonesty

[Hagar]

2 hours ago, Tigers2010 said:

Still waiting for one of your examples of Obama dishonesty

In the serious Happy Days, once or twice The Fonz was in a position were he had to say, "I was wrong".  He never could get it out.  Same thing here.  Dems can't say, Obama messed up when he....... Uh,............err...........Forget it.