If there's an earlier origin for the phrase do share. I came across "If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product."
A slight deviation here http://berglondon.com/talks/people/?slide=1 2007 and http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=56038929223 1987.
The second one talks about marketing as a form of exchange which can be traditional or not. I guess "products as people" gets under the skin of those who have a product that can only be marketed the traditional way. So the traditionalists conjure up, through proxy drum beaters, sufficiently scary scenarios and propagate them widely, in the hope that the other form of business dies a quick death.
Commodification of the public sphere was first described by Jürgen Habermas in 'Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit' (1962). The implications of his theory in the digital realm were the subject of broad academic debate in the 1990s: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1280/1200
Most stupid thing ever, so you think that if they put a price tag on it and you pay for something, they respect your privacy and don't share/analyze you. Just because they want money for it, doesn't mean it is better in any way, just more expensive.
Not really. While I totally agree with you that it doesn't in any way put them under the obligation not to take your data, there is little need to do so as they are getting paid anyway. Taking data "secretly" would be a threat to that company as a whole if it was found out, which would be a dumb business move. There are quite a few big companies that are making billions from "you", and you wonder how their products are free.
That is not what i am criticizing/arguing. What i am saying is, no matter if it is free or paid for, your data and your "profile" will be analyzed and sold further on. Why would anyone do that, since they are allready getting paid? Because they can do it (technically and legally there is nothing that can stop them), they want to do it (they don't care about your privacy & human rights, just look at all the big companies that collect your data to "give you better service" even if they are making millions from "classical" sales); and there is money to be made, even if just a ounce of gold (greed is above all moral and/or reasonable financial paths). Example: all the big names in business (~ Snipped as per TOS ~, icrap, yaho, att, and on and on it goes ......) So all this fuzz ....."uuuu it is free and it is selling YOU, but if it is not free then it must be somehow better"..... grow up. p.s. Nothing personal, it just makes me angry to read these articles about such topics and those as "is your privacy right or privilege". I mean... WTF idiocracy. peace
What's most important are rights to be private when we choose, through strong encryption, anonymity, ad blocking, cookie management, and so on.
And while it maybe beyond the scope of the "average" user, it's certainly not impossible. What is well within the means of the "average" user is to exercise discretion in all aspects of one's life.
Indeed. But according to Google, discretion is "the quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid causing offense or revealing private information." So it's maybe all about discretion Getting back to your initial post, I agree that it's foolish to expect Facebook and Google to protect information that we've freely given them. Moreover, I'm on Facebook mainly to troll for old friends, so that would be counterproductive. But I don't share anything that I want kept private.
This is a quote according to Groklaw from Google lawyer's opening statement: This conflicts directly with companies that have made and are making their money by selling products. To what extent the "product-selling" companies are orchestrating the "if you don't pay, you are the product" campaign and the outrage over violations of privacy can only be guessed.
