Google Opt Out Feature Lets Users Protect Privacy By Moving To Remote Village

The Onion has a great response to this from 2009: ▶ this video Of course you can opt out. People live in the backwoods of Alaska. But if you want to live a semi normal life there is no option. And absolutely people should feel entitled to a normal life.

Reminds me of the wonderful Onion piece about a Google Opt Out Village. ▶ this video I appreciate the frustration that, if not quite yet, it’ll be near impossible to live a normal life without having exposure to GenAI systems. Of course as others say here, and the date on the Onion piece shows, it’s not sadly not a new concern.

When Apple killed Flash, it killed Flash for you too. Now if Facebook promotes division and misinformation... just because you don't log onto Facebook, doesn't mean it has no impact on your life. ▶ this video vibes

> If that's your kink, then Polaroid cameras and camcorders exist. That sounds a bit like the Onion sketch "Google allows you to opt-out of tracking by moving to remote mountain village" [1]. This case proves that the criminal justice system works to protect your personal images, we just need a better way to be notified when it happens (the kind of action you would expect Apple to take if they cared, instead of "we continued to strengthen our vendor protocols") 1: ▶ this video

Well, let's put it this way: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." You can stay away from Facebook and then feel really smug ten years from now when it eventually collapses. But until then, you'd have missed out on a lot of important things. The only winning move is to realize that you do not have a choice, and that the terms of service are just an illusion. For the record, I think Facebook's existence is regrettable. But the notion that you have any ability, choice, freedom, right, or opportunity to opt out from it is laughable. As for the idea of the social contract, I think you are actually spot on: > Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority [...] in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. Individuals have: [?] consented explicitly [x] consented tacitly [x] to surrender some of their freedoms [x] to submit to the authority [Facebook] [ ] in exchange for protection of their remaining rights [x] in exchange for maintenance of the social order In fact, it could even be argued that this de-facto state of affair ought to be made de-jure. Certainly, it is the case already today that many of my local government agencies are more active on Twitter or Facebook than they are over phone or e-mail. In fact, they rarely use e-mail for regulatory reasons. If someone is suicidal, has an e

So it's pretty safe to say this vid from The Onion made a few years ago has become reality. ▶ this video What a time to be alive.

"If you want to opt out that is fine. You can just toil in the hinterlands, and die young" ▶ this video

Seriously? You can't imagine why people might want to take advantage of modern technology while simultaneously wanting privacy protections? Your argument reminds me of this Onion video: ▶ this video