I disagree with the base premise that being opt out needs to be a right. That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.

We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default. Requiring companies to have an opt in process with no coercion or other methods of making people feel obligated to opt in is our right.

We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default.

How would that benefit the average person?

I disagree with the base premise that being opt out needs to be a right. That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.

We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default. Requiring companies to have an opt in process with no coercion or other methods of making people feel obligated to opt in is our right.

Less price gouging

How do you expect that to result?

I don't expect... It is already happening. Prime example are rents and wages.

There is nothing to be done about it. Too late

Dynamic pricing is a more current battle ground.

All of these are fixed based on cohort specific information and with dynamic pricing it can be literally individual level data.

The question was how "less price gouging" would result from a right not to have "your data harvested by default".

You got downvoted because Lemmy users like knee jerk reactions and think that you can unmake a technology or idea. You can’t, Ai is here and it’s forever now. Best we can do is find ways to live with it and like you said, reward those who use it ethically. The Lemmy idea that Ai should be banned and not used is so unrealistic

By denying corpos data, their models are less effective especially if you are salting it when ever possible.

Do you really need Faceerh and Sundar the creep to have access to your tax returns and locations? Also, do you need them to know you like Asian women with large tits? Or that you and your friends enjoy a hobby?

You seem to misunderstand the ire;

AI in its current state has existed for over a decade. Watson used ML algorithms to beat Jeopardy by answering natural language questions in 2011. But techbros have gotten ahold of it and decided that copyright rules don’t apply to them and now the cat is out of the bag?!? From the outside it looks like bootlicking for the same bullshit that told us we would be using blockchain to process mortgages in 10 years… 10 years ago. AI isn’t just here to stay it’s been here for 70 years.

The problem is not the tool. It's the inability to use the tool without a third party provider.

being opt out needs to be a right. That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.

As the years have passed, it has become the acceptable consensus for all of your personal information, thoughts, and opinions, to become freely available to anyone, at anytime, for any reason in order for companies to profit from it.

People keep believing this is normal and companies keep taking more. Unless everyone is willing to stand firm and say enough, I only see it declining further, unfortunately.

You don't need AI. There are enough porn sites with real humans.

We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default.

I would maybe not go quite that far but at the very least this should apply to commercial interests and living people.

I think there are some causes where it should be acceptable to have your data usable by default, e.g. statistical analysis of health threats (think those studies about the danger of living near a coal power plant or similar things).

I doubt we'll ever be offered a real opt-out option.

Instead I'm encouraged by the development of poison pills for the AI that are non-consensually harvesting human art (Glaze and Nightshade) and music (HarmonyCloak).

ML technology has existed for a while, but it's wild to claim that the technology pre-2020 is the same. A breakthrough happened.