Is this the next level of surveillance capitalism?

CorePress2024-02-19  22

Is this the next level of surveillance capitalism?

https://www.wired.com/story/telly-tv-free-privacy/

In the USA, a startup is currently making headlines that offers a “free” television. In return, you must agree to the monitoring of usage behavior and the display of advertising. Attempts to circumvent this (e.g. use without an internet connection or DNS-based ad blockers) are prevented by contractual clauses. In addition, the device does not belong to you, it is basically just borrowed. If requested by the provider, you have to return it or buy it.

What do you think of this idea of ​​exchanging your data for “free” products? I find this development worrying. Other devices also collect data, but you can take action against it yourself because you own the devices. I'm afraid that this "everything as a service" business model will continue to prevail and displace everything else. So that at some point you won't have anything anymoreand because of such contracts you lose the freedom to do whatever you want with your devices.



------------------------

What do you think of this idea of ​​exchanging your data for "free" products?

Well, instead of giving away your data, you now get something in return.

In the future, your digital identity will be yours and you can decide who gets what from your data.

I'm afraid that this "everything as a service" business model will continue to prevail and displace everything else.

Then don't use these services. You are the master of your decision. Be aware of this. The more people you think like us, the sooner you can build an ecosystem in which you don't have to depend on something like that.

Is this the next level of surveillance capitalism?

Capitalism is the free exchange between those who act voluntarily individuals. Monitoring only occurs if you actively agree to it orhe when centralized third parties (usually the state or a company affiliated with it) believe they have the right to impose this on you.



------------------------

You have the option of being a paying viewer as before and being anonymous. It may not hurt if the odds are determined objectively and not just guessed and extrapolated. It should also be noted when exactly people switch or switch off. e.g. when Ricarda Lang appears on Lanz - just as an example.



------------------------

We've had that here for a long time - with the difference being that people buy the television.



------------------------

If I buy a "normal" TV, I can limit its network communication as I want and thereby prevent a large part of the surveillance. The manufacturer can't do anything about it. I own the product and can use itdo what I want.

This business model prevents such interventions. If you violate the contract, you have to return or buy the TV. I don't know what the legal situation is in Germany, but it should be completely legal in the USA.



------------------------

What does business model mean - it is optional. The difference is that people there consciously use this system. Here most people just always press “Accept” because they don’t care or they don’t know what that entails.



------------------------

Every user knows how a smart TV works. What communication is going on in the background that the user doesn't notice? The difference is that I have to finance the Smart TV myself.



------------------------

Netflix, Spotify and Co don't do anything different. You don't own anything there either.



------------------------

That's right, but luckily there's still the good old "pirated copy".



------------------------

As a media professional, I can't find anything good about the pirated copy.



------------------------

If there were DRM-free alternatives, I might still agree with you.

But if I have the choice between Netflix etc. (which, by the way, doesn't even work properly under Linux thanks to DRM) and pirated copies, then I choose the pirated copy with a clear conscience.



------------------------

I think it's reprehensible if you think that media professionals should put months of work into a product in order to then be able to consume it "for free".

How do you think people like me should live? ? Do you think I make video games and music out of idealism and live off air and love?

What do you do for a living?



------------------------

I think it's reprehensible if you think that media professionalsThey should put months of work into a product in order to then be able to consume it “for free”.

Then they should offer it sensibly and legally. But you don't want to do without DRM. And then complain when it scares away customers because pirated copies offer a better user experience...

What do you do for a living?

Mini job at Aldi. What does that matter?



------------------------

But you don't want to do without DRM.

Why do you think this DRM crap exists? Exactly: because of pirated copies! You brought this nonsense on yourself!

Steam takes 30% of the revenue. Do you think we'll give that up voluntarily?

Mini job at Aldi. What does that matter?

Let me know which Aldi. Then I come by and take the products with me for free. I'll then explain to your boss that you agree to this.

Oh, is that theft? These are pirated copies too.



------------------------

This oneYou brought this nonsense on yourself!

Such nonsense. DRM doesn't prevent pirated copies.

Oh, that's theft? These are pirated copies too.

No, not by definition. And that's not even comparable. When you steal something, you take it away from its owner. This results in an actual loss.

A pirated copy is a copy. This means nothing is taken away from anyone. Of course, when the copyright lobby whines about how much money they are losing to evil pirates, they always assume that everyone who consumes a pirated copy would pay for the content if no pirated copy was available. Of course, they don't get the idea that many people don't even have the money to do it. But regardless, it's enough to convince politicians to pass senseless laws.



------------------------

Simple thing: if you think a product is good and want to consume it, pay for it!

of course they always assume thatthat anyone who consumes a pirated copy would pay for the content

Yes, that's right: if you don't like it, you won't consume it.

You're showing cheap, parasitic logic here .



------------------------

Unfortunately, that's not what reality looks like. For example, I live on €520 a month and have 2 options if I want to see a film, for example:

Pirate copyDon't see the film

The rights holders have exactly the same amount of both options.

And I know I'm not the only one in this situation.



------------------------

If you don't have money for a restaurant, you have two options:

Bull the mine Don't eat there

------------------------

Because as we all know, restaurants can make infinite copies of a dish. 🤦🏼‍♀️

Stop comparing physical products with digital copies and licenses...



------------------------

I'm listeninge only when you stop taking what I work hard for for free.



------------------------

Then just carry on, I don't care. 🤷🏼‍♀️



------------------------

Copyright is clearly regulated. As is theft. Both are punishable. And I hope you get caught. Then there won't be much left of your €520.



------------------------

Don't worry, I'll take care of my anonymity. Every child already knows that in Germany you will be warned for any kind of shit if you are careless.

Your guide to a better future - quark24
Your guide to a better future - quark24

categories