I love it but you spelt damnit wrong

Legend

100%. Bandit Heeler is my guide to being a parent.

My friend, I think you simply misunderstand the value of companies. Microsoft has a market cap of 2.7trillion. a wealth cap of 10m means that 270,000 people will be maxed at that cap. For one company. Who of that 270,000 runs the company?

Then extrapolate out to all listed and private companies. Your theory is incompatible with how companies operate.

NOW you’re cooking with gas!!

Sounds good in theory. But it is inoperative in a capitalist society. Here’s a thought exercise:

Management might have a salary of $5 million but stock worth 1 billion. Maybe you expect they divest their stock? Okay, who buys? Who has control of the company? Does it become a societal asset? Can’t have a company run by a million-person committee.

Your wealth cap works where someone has liquidity over 100million. I suggest that few do as it’s not a tax-advantaged strategy.

please refer to my response

This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.

The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.

Sounds like we are violently in agreement then, that all of those fields should be removed.

Good outcome.

I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.

The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.

I think you might be replying to wrong conment

I do understand that, but I think you are applying a post hoc rationalisation to the change.

For example, examining the change through the lens of intended use -> you can’t as there is no such use of the field today - it’s tomorrow’s use that is potentially problematic.

I don’t want to wait until a bad actor applies the field, I want to stop the field from existing.

This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.

The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.

I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.

The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.

Hard disagree. This represents the pot getting turned up on the frog.

I acknowledge you are factually correct. However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies.

There is no positive use case , but lots of possibly negative use cases. For that reason, it shouldn’t exist.

There’s a hyperlink in OP comment (this one) that has the study linked through a download button.

here’s the direct ddownload link