So like I said, you and I have very different definition. Using yours, you cannot harm someone who is in come or too young to understand what is happening to them. Similarily, if my personal information is being traded online for money a harm is being done to me, even if I'm not aware of these transactions taking place. I just don't expect we'll agree on this.
Even if you use a different definition you can acknowledge that someone else has a different view, and your original "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument does not hold for that person.
Internet ads can in theory be turned on or off per user, it's no rocket science, so you could opt-in and everybody could be happy.
That's not what I said, you can harm somebody who is too young to understand. I'm claiming that nothing bad happens to you from information being traded about you, under whatever definition of "bad" you prefer
>>when something bad happens to someone, and the someone is aware of it
Well I mean that's pretty straightforward, is it not? Someone who is in a coma is not aware of what's happening to them = ergo, no harm is being done, no?
>>I'm claiming that nothing bad happens to you from information being traded about you
Ok let me follow this for couple more seconds then - any information? Or only specific kinds? Like if I take explicit pictures of my partner and put them on the internet(or sell them, to tick the "trading" box), but she _never_ finds out and it has zero impact on her life - was there harm being done?
>>"bad" you prefer
It's not a definiton of bad but a definition of harm we're differing on. You said no one was ever harmed by online tracking - I disagree on that point.
