Facebook, Google, et al

[Mjl]

This is the same as the Bezos bridge thing.

A. Person does something solely to help people. Everyone wins because of that thing.
B. Person does something to make money or for their own enjoyment. Everyone wins because of that thing.
C. Person does nothing.

I agree that A is better than B. The problem is that it seems like the majority of people think C is better than B. Fucking crab mentality.

[MICHHAWK]

steer clear of the social medias and most of your problems will be solved.

[Cascadia]

I haven't read the tweeters but I think the "for profit" sets some people off.

It's a great idea, why shouldn't people profit off it? Why is profit a bad thing? It's an incentive to do good stuff like this. Everyone wins.

I’ve never heard anyone argue that profit is a bad thing.

[Mjl]

It's in the post you just replied to. Unless you think people are "set off" by things that they don't consider bad.

[Cascadia]

It's in the post you just replied to

I think your confusing

A. Profit

with

B. Amount of Profit


They’re not the same thing.

[MICHHAWK]

thanks for making my point for me. your timing could not have been better.

[Mjl]

Nobody has mentioned amount of profit. But even then, if profit isn't bad, then why are people against this hotline?

[jhawks99]

“These are people at their worst moments. Using that data to help other people is one thing, but commercializing it just seems like a real ethical line for a nonprofit to cross.”

Jennifer King, privacy and data policy fellow at Stanford University

[Qusdahl]

“Hi, I’m feeling vulnerable, like a threat to myself, Im tempted to….”

“Whoa whoa hold that thought, have you even agreed to the terms yet? Yeah yer supposed to read 50 paragraphs of fine print, but if now’s not a good time, you could always just hurry up and click ‘accept’ like Zuck expects you to do with the Facebook terms.”

Don’t get me wrong. Q is all for profit! And what better incentive to talk someone off the ledge, than the chance to profit off them down the road?

If they off themself, they ain’t got no market value no more.

[Mjl]

“These are people at their worst moments. Using that data to help other people is one thing, but commercializing it just seems like a real ethical line for a nonprofit to cross.”

Jennifer King, privacy and data policy fellow at Stanford University

I saw that. The reasons why were flimsy at best.

[Mjl]

“Hi, I’m feeling vulnerable, like a threat to myself, Im tempted to….”

“Whoa whoa hold that thought, have you even agreed to the terms yet? Yeah yer supposed to read 50 paragraphs of fine print, but if now’s not a good time, you could always just hurry up and click ‘accept’ like Zuck expects you to do with the Facebook terms.”

Don’t get me wrong. Q is all for profit! And what better incentive to talk someone off the ledge, than the chance to profit off them down the road?

If they off themself, they ain’t got no market value no more.

So you'd rather they just off themselves. JFC.

[Mjl]

And their data is still anonymized. If the company is selling their data without a simple way to opt out they are breaking the law and should be held accountable.

If they just click agree on those 50 paragraphs, which they will - what's wrong with that? You think someone horribly depressed gives a damn if someone is making money off them if it's doing absolutely no harm to that person?

[jhawks99]

Some noted that studies of other types of anonymized datasets have shown that it can sometimes be easy to trace the records back to specific individuals, citing past examples involving health records, genetics data and even passengers in New York City taxis.

Others questioned whether the people who text their pleas for help are actually consenting to having their data shared, despite the approximately 50-paragraph disclosure the helpline offers a link to when individuals first reach out.

Add that to the profit motive and this practice is questionable at best.

[Mjl]

Yeah, the "some people have done a poor job of not breaking laws on this so it's bad to do this at all" is the very definition of a flimsy argument.

Also, "their" data? It's anonymized. I don't care that they don't know their data is being aggregated with other random people and being sold, I care that they're getting help.

Who is being hurt here and how? Profit is not hurting anyone. Assuming they are operating within the law no personal information is being given away, so privacy isn't a downside.

[Qusdahl]

“Hi, I’m feeling vulnerable, like a threat to myself, Im tempted to….”

“Whoa whoa hold that thought, have you even agreed to the terms yet? Yeah yer supposed to read 50 paragraphs of fine print, but if now’s not a good time, you could always just hurry up and click ‘accept’ like Zuck expects you to do with the Facebook terms.”

Don’t get me wrong. Q is all for profit! And what better incentive to talk someone off the ledge, than the chance to profit off them down the road?

If they off themself, they ain’t got no market value no more.

So you'd rather they just off themselves. JFC.

Dunno how you came to that conclusion.

Again, they’re more profitable if kept alive.

Whaddya think Q is, a funeral home?

[Mjl]

I don't know how to reply to sarcasm. It seems like you'd prefer people to not get help because someone is making money. That's fucked up.

Psychologists are evil too. They make money off people's problems. How awful.

Again, who is being harmed?

[Qusdahl]

Jeez bro, Q’s on your side here.

Again again, the best way to keep someone alive, is to create the economic incentive to not let them die.

The only way anyone could possibly be harmed, is the capitalists who might not be able to make money if they otherwise didn’t monetize suicide hotlines.

Won’t someone please think of them?

[PhDhawk]

I don't know how to reply to sarcasm. It seems like you'd prefer people to not get help because someone is making money. That's fucked up.

Psychologists are evil too. They make money off people's problems. How awful.

Again, who is being harmed?

You're kinda misrepresenting for-profit vs non-profits.

The people who work for nonprofits still get paid. In fact, they usually get paid better. For one thing, there's no money going to an owner or to shareholders. Which I assume is the problem people have....not the people doing work earning a salary.

I haven't followed the story, but nonprofits create jobs, and it seems like you're saying they don't.

[Qusdahl]

Mjl, pay no mind to this uppity ivory tower phd guy.

He thinks the best way to grow a consumer-driven economy, is more money to consumers. As if an extra couple hundred bucks in pocket would mean they can go buy more pizza.

Psh!

The only real way for a consumer economy to grow, is tax breaks for the pizza restaurant owners.

[Mjl]

I don't know how to reply to sarcasm. It seems like you'd prefer people to not get help because someone is making money. That's fucked up.

Psychologists are evil too. They make money off people's problems. How awful.

Again, who is being harmed?

You're kinda misrepresenting for-profit vs non-profits.

The people who work for nonprofits still get paid. In fact, they usually get paid better. For one thing, there's no money going to an owner or to shareholders. Which I assume is the problem people have....not the people doing work earning a salary.

I haven't followed the story, but nonprofits create jobs, and it seems like you're saying they don't.

See my post about the three options. If it's between a non-profit helping people, a for-profit helping people, and not helping people, the first is a little better than the second, but I would much rather have the second than the third.

If the ability to profit off ideas helps incentivize doing good things, that's good.

I still haven't figured out who the victim is here. Other than the people who just feel icky about it.