Guest 2

The profiling, the manipulation, the loss of autonomy that comes later, years later maybe.

Terribly bad.

Behavioral economics calls it bounded rationality.

We systematically discount long-term risks, especially complex cumulative ones like algorithmic harm.

We just can't accurately price the future cost of selling today's data.

Recognized international law, yeah.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Then can market transactions ever truly respect that?

Can consent under economic pressure with massive information gaps about future harms ever be truly meaningful?

That's the philosophical core of the argument against marketization.

It really is.

The sources lay out these fundamental paradoxes.

But they also risk entrenching inequality, forcing the vulnerable to sell what the wealthy can keep.

But the information asymmetry is so vast.

Can users really understand the long-term risk of algorithmic harm when they click sell?

Probably not.

But maybe privacy is something more than property.

Maybe it's an inalienable right tied to dignity and social fairness, something markets just can't properly value.

That seems to be the conclusion from the sources.

There's no way forward that doesn't involve sacrificing something important, either potential economic gains for some or the principle that core autonomy shouldn't be for sale.