> Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.
First, a caveat. I don't know the people behind the comments in this sub-thread. I have read almost all of them and find them to be informative and thoughtful. So thanks for that.
That said, when I read a comment like the above, what I hear is a mentality of "you are an individual, with power, if you don't like it, act individually". That mentality is not wrong, but is quite limited and incomplete. It overlooks the power and importance of individuals discussing and organizing together, which is often much more powerful than simply "voting with your feet".
As always, with your replies to me, your spirit/style is much appreciated.
> It overlooks the power and importance of individuals discussing and organizing together, which is often much more powerful than simply "voting with your feet".
I did indeed purposefully overlook that, but only out of a working assumption that the consent of the governed is there, overall.
If there truly is no consent of the governed for informed consent being a sufficient tool for empowerment in these cases, then there are deeper topics that need to be discussed. Some of those topics could lead to conclusions that may have catastrophic implications for modern society, if not discussed in a reasonable and considerate manner. Cancelling entire industries, in one fell swoop, are some of the conclusions being drawn in the current climate, for example.
If there is consent of the governed that opt-in is a sufficient tool for empowerment in these cases, then these cases may ultimately be logically reducible to failures to uphold the laws, as they currently exist.
To further expound on the latter line of reasoning, these cases seem to anecdotally belong to a few categories: 1) I don’t like advertising, 2) I didn’t know that they could do that, 3) I don’t want anyone watching what I do.
Category 1) is a completely understandable sentiment with implications that I currently lack the energy to comment upon.
Category 2) should be taken as that individual’s human rights having been violated. Specifically, that situation could arguably be pursued in the United States under the ADA. Enforced broadly, this could have catastrophic consequences to modern society. Enforced judiciously, this could provide much needed social progress.
Category 3) is a completely understandable sentiment with implications that I currently lack the energy to comment upon.
The category 2) implications do seem to be most relevant to society, at this juncture.
edit: I can imagine that a class-action ADA lawsuit against a carefully selected set of defendants (if legally possible) could lead to resolution of this matter in the courts, without calling on the legislature to comment on topics for which they are under-qualified to comment upon.
First, a caveat. I don't know the people behind the comments in this sub-thread. I have read almost all of them and find them to be informative and thoughtful. So thanks for that.
That said, when I read a comment like the above, what I hear is a mentality of "you are an individual, with power, if you don't like it, act individually". That mentality is not wrong, but is quite limited and incomplete. It overlooks the power and importance of individuals discussing and organizing together, which is often much more powerful than simply "voting with your feet".