I really don’t get why some of you are so triggered simply because of my privacy concerns, and the downvoting is so heavy. Maybe a full disclosure is due? What is your own work status with Google and Apple for instance?
Norton knows its stuff, its in the security business since very long, they’re very credible, and they point out clearly here that what I’m saying, about phone privacy, is fact.
Very puzzling reaction around this issue, indeed.
Both things, security and privacy, are sides of the same coin. Hacking is nothing more than remote, and unauthorized, manipulation of data in a device you don’t own. If you install a keylogger without the user knowing… are we talking about security, privacy, or both?
Lockdown mode helps with keeping the processes isolated, many typical browser features can be used, and are actively used, to fingerprint users. Data, even metadata, is worth more than money these days, with several AI models being developed, and needing training.
There’s no way, you say. Yet that kind of targeted ads is precisely what happens, that’s what many users are experiencing with their phones, regardless of their microphone permissions. Big tech is being profoundly dishonest about their privacy with users, and don’t seem to stick with their own privacy legal terms. But what I’m talking about is the browser version of YouTube. not even the app.
What you say its true, but apps having real problems with lockdown mode are few and far between. Usually cosmetic issues and that’s it.
Apple has been dropping the ball on privacy with the latest iOS releases. I thought that 14 had decent privacy. But from 15 onward, YouTube is recommending videos out of your face to face, voice, offline conversations - just like Android does, and I’m pretty selfish with app permissions already. So I enable lockdown mode, not just to harden my phone safety. But also to help a little bit in that regard.
Bottom right seems most fitting.
The problem with Marx was that the surplus value is nothing else but paper exploitation. Real wealth can only be in the consumable product of work that is being send to the market, not in work itself. That’s why his labor theory and ideas on surplus value are all wrong.
In a private economy, the final product is, literally, socialized once in the market… because it never remains in the hands of the capitalist. If the capitalist produces cars, he doesn’t get to keep hundreds of thousands of cars in his own garage. All the capitalist obtains in terms of capital increases, are symbolic riches on painted paper - in other words, its not just that labor exploitation is not exploitation as such… its that the capitalist is even deceived by his own economic system, so that he becomes willing to share his output freely with others, the economy can work, and goods can be exchanged. This happens every time he receives money, or make believe wealth, in exchange of giving real material wealth to another… probably a worker for some other industry who gets to benefit, as a consumer, from the work of another.
We have to understand that money is useless for absolutely everything, except in aiding in the exchange of goods and services. It has -no value- in and of itself.
But even if it had value, if money in itself were wealth, redistribution and expropriation as solutions to social inequality are also mistaken, because the math just doesn’t add up. Pick any super billionaire from the US and divide his/her fortune by the population number. You’ll see that if we wanted to take entire fortunes from the rich in order to distribute equally to all the rest, we wouldn’t be able to cover household expenses for more than a couple of months, if that. And you sacrifice entire production lines in doing this, so you’d get scarcity and price increases on top of this failure.
There’s a good reason why marxist economics have been tried so many times and have always failed. Marxist conclusions are indeed very sound in a logical sense… but their starting point is a problem which is badly defined. The premises which are contained in their arguments are completely wrong in empirical terms.