It's true though. There actually exist people whose only incentive in life is the pay they receive or the profits they can make. It seems to be more common in the US where your worth as a human being is measured by your wealth. That's why the USA looks in most parts like a third world country with a few enclaves where the rich people live.

It feels similar to being a buzzing fridge. These people possibly can't have any feelings or else they couldn't do that job.

Will the messages be used as training data now?

Yes.

No, it won't. All the "news" about that at the end of last year was 100% nonsense, started by tech "influencers" who cited nothing and showed nothing.

https://lifehacker.com/tech/meta-is-not-scraping-dms-to-trai...

what has meta ever done that would instill trust in you? From the very article you cited:

> The best thing you can do to preserve your privacy and security with your Meta messages is to use end-to-end encryption (E2EE) whenever possible. WhatsApp has E2EE built-in, and Meta has automatically started rolling it out for Messenger, but you might need to manually start an E2EE chat for existing conversations in the app. The same goes for Instagram: Meta offers E2EE, but you need to enable it yourself. In either app, tap the name of the chat to check whether or not that conversation is currently E2EE.

I didn't say that I trust Meta. My point was that saying they're doing it so they can read your messages just means that the people commenting don't know how E2EE works, or how it is still not a 100% secure way of communicating, just a more secure way of communicating. Once one of those ends is compromised, it's game over.

I really don't understand what the point of the quote you're citing? Or how it goes against what I was saying?

The best thing you can do would be to use E2EE. That would be the most secure thing. It won't, however, prevent the makers of your E2EE product from reading the messages once they're unencrypted, regardless of who makes it.

And thus the trap closes shut. Big money wants to control all your identities. This is basically it, it's the final stage. now all it takes is a government that stops obeying fundamental rights... oh wait!

So in order to save your nails you rather buy a new device? Makes total sense.

Good! Surveillance pricing needs to be regulated, it distorts supply and demand massively because one party (pricing service providers, big chain stores) has a MASSIVE information advantage other the others (end customers and small shop owners). It's going to finalize the transition from a free market to a oligopoly in the retail sector. It's basically socialism for a few powerful corporations.

Haha, no no no. I don't trust this to be true. Everyone will pay more or else the investment into this technology doen't break even.

No, grocery stores will be the weakest entry point to have the customer get used to get individual pricing. It's not the store owners themselves but big data businesses who do the pricing for them. Essentially taking the freedom away from the shops even further while at the same time squeezing even more money out of customers. This totally distorts supply and demand.

There is no way Walmart or Target or whoever is giving up their gold dust to some nameless SaaS for pricing. They will do it in-house. Never mind the fact that a similar aggregation attempt for the property rental market was considered actionable by the DoJ already.

No, surveillance pricing is used to get the maximum out of the customer, not the opposite. This needs to be illegal. If anything surveillance pricing will make the retail business MORE like the health care system, because the latter already employs these tactics: the unhealthier you are, the more you pay. Same thing as surveillance pricing.

It's a fundamental shift from:

"I sell this product for the cheapest price possible and I make everything possible in my business to be cost effective and buy from more cost effective businesses."

TO

"I don't care about cost-effectiveness. I just try to find out how to get the most money out of my customers."

In most industries, especially in electronics and computers, the more you consume, the less you pay.

Companies like Google or Amazon pay for a server computer only a small fraction of the price I would have to pay to buy it.

Similarly for any electronics or computing device or component. The same is true for any food ingredient. I can buy some spice by the kilogram at a price an order of magnitude lower than when I buy 10 grams of it.

If the same were applied in healthcare, someone with a chronic disease should pay much less for the same drug, in comparison with someone with an acute disease.

Should there be any consumer surplus?