Except that, still, to this day, most sexual consent is assumed, not explicit, even in the highest brow circles where most people are pro-explicit-sexual-consent.
The same way, most tech privacy consent is assumed, not explicit. Users dismiss popups because they want to use the app and don't care what you do with the data. Maybe later they will care, but not in the moment...
> Except that, still, to this day, most sexual consent is assumed, not explicit
Did you miss my sarcastic little requote blurb that stated exactly that? Or do you normally rephrase the exact same point with added ad hominem attacks, and somehow frame it as a counterpoint?
> The same way, most tech privacy consent is assumed, not explicit.
And yet, you still have a right to it. In both instances.
Anyways, the "right" you have to explicit sexual consent is not really there. In that, you cannot go to court and say "I said no" and get any meaningful damages or a conviction without other evidence. Similarly, courts treat these popups as essentially unreadable and you cannot go to court and say "They clicked "Allow"" and get away with anything unreasonable.
Most people treat _sex_ very differently than _data sharing_ to the point that the comparison doesn’t really hold up for me.
We're not talking about either, we're talking about consent.
Sadly, sites like Tinder suggest those two objects are, in fact, treated very much the same way.
If 6.99 billion people cannot give informed consent on something, you have more problems than just showing the dialog.
Certainly, which is 100% a discussion about how to better present information.
It still doesn't change the fundamental right to consent.
Except that, still, to this day, most sexual consent is assumed, not explicit, even in the highest brow circles where most people are pro-explicit-sexual-consent.
The same way, most tech privacy consent is assumed, not explicit. Users dismiss popups because they want to use the app and don't care what you do with the data. Maybe later they will care, but not in the moment...
> Except that, still, to this day, most sexual consent is assumed, not explicit
Did you miss my sarcastic little requote blurb that stated exactly that? Or do you normally rephrase the exact same point with added ad hominem attacks, and somehow frame it as a counterpoint?
> The same way, most tech privacy consent is assumed, not explicit.
And yet, you still have a right to it. In both instances.
What is the ad hominem attack here?
Anyways, the "right" you have to explicit sexual consent is not really there. In that, you cannot go to court and say "I said no" and get any meaningful damages or a conviction without other evidence. Similarly, courts treat these popups as essentially unreadable and you cannot go to court and say "They clicked "Allow"" and get away with anything unreasonable.