Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonytrary | Hacker News Reader

I don't think Facebook is being ethical by making people wait to delete their account. Thought experiment:

Suppose John owns a room. John's room is occupied at full capacity, 24/7. People mingle in the room, sometimes they trade with each other. Assume John is never present in the room at any time. John decides to install a camera and microphone in the room. John analyzes the data in order help increase the quantity of trades in the room, through which John makes a considerable commission. Later, someone asks him to delete the data he has on them. John says he will only delete the data after 90 days, and if the person takes a step in the room within 14 days, they will not have their data deleted.

Is John's behavior ethical?

View on HN

So why are John's friends using the living room so frequently yet without having any contact with him? Maybe you find that question to be pedantic given the bigger picture you're ostensibly addressing. But trying to imagine the answers would make it obvious why your hypothetical situation doesn't really apply to reality.

For starters, your scenario involves a surveillance camera, but in the next sentence, you ask us to imagine that the friends haven't given any permission. Permission for what exactly?

> So why are John's friends using the living room so frequently yet without having any contact with him?

Good question. I rent out a house with 100% capacity, and I haven't set foot in the house in the past year at all. It's managed remotely by me. There are living areas where people can hang out. This is also what John does.

> you ask us to imagine that the friends haven't given any permission. Permission for what exactly?

I have edited that part out and made things more concise, thanks for catching that. John records his living room and uses the data in order to sell products to the people who happen to be there. Later, people found out and have politely asked him to delete any video and audio involving them.

Side note: I feel John's implementation isn't important here, so I've intentionally left it out. Perhaps he earns a profit by having buyers and sellers meet, serendipitously, in his living room. For example, he may learn that Alice is a laptop seller and Bob is a laptop buyer. Assume John can influence the traffic in his living room for the sake of the gedanken.

One weakness of the way you’ve described this: John isn’t getting a commission on trades between the minglers, he gets a commission by the things he blares on the TVs in the room.

Aren't advertisers fundamentally just another form of mingler? One key difference I can think of is that the friend, posting an innocent picture of their new Adidas, is not paid any sort of commission for influencing potentially hundreds of people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com