> It works like this: as soon as they get your credit card information, they have enough information to go to a data broker and buy every bit of data on you that exists. Now they know who you are, and so now they know when you get paid, your net worth, your buying habits.
This is blatantly false. There are laws against credit card companies and banks selling individually identifiable transaction histories or balances. Financial datasets do get sold but they use anonymization and aggregation to say things like "people in ZIP codes 100xx who shop at Merchant A also spend X% of their fast-food budget at Merchant B."
> Second, these apps may not have a tickbox TOS but they seem to have one of those implicit TOSs that I'm still not sure how they are legal, e.g. "by using this service you agree..."
Right, but this really doesn't have anything to do with apps. These same kind of implicit TOS's exist anytime you shop anywhere on a website. Like you say, their enforceability is questionable -- just because they exist doesn't mean they hold up in court. And if you rent a car in person vs via an app, you still sign the same agreement at the rental counter. I agree that forced arbitration is a problem, but apps are pretty orthogonal to it. If you want to fight forced arbitration, then call your representative and work to raise awareness. Crusading against apps doesn't accomplish anything.
> then call your representative and work to raise awareness
Strongly curious why you believe individual action to protect privacy is less effective than calling a politician. Do you have personal experience with effectiveness in individual lobbying of the government? Or some example I can go learn about? I'm deeply cynical about influencing politics without capital or a cult of personality.
I said call your representative about arbitration, not privacy. Because arbitration is everywhere -- not installing an app isn't going to make much difference.
Reps' offices absolutely tally the subjects their constituents call about, and it affects what bills they vote for and propose. Obviously it has to be lots of people calling, but those are made of individuals. There are tons of examples of successful organizing leading to change. But yes it definitely takes organizational effort.
> It works like this: as soon as they get your credit card information, they have enough information to go to a data broker and buy every bit of data on you that exists. Now they know who you are, and so now they know when you get paid, your net worth, your buying habits.
This is blatantly false. There are laws against credit card companies and banks selling individually identifiable transaction histories or balances. Financial datasets do get sold but they use anonymization and aggregation to say things like "people in ZIP codes 100xx who shop at Merchant A also spend X% of their fast-food budget at Merchant B."
> Second, these apps may not have a tickbox TOS but they seem to have one of those implicit TOSs that I'm still not sure how they are legal, e.g. "by using this service you agree..."
Right, but this really doesn't have anything to do with apps. These same kind of implicit TOS's exist anytime you shop anywhere on a website. Like you say, their enforceability is questionable -- just because they exist doesn't mean they hold up in court. And if you rent a car in person vs via an app, you still sign the same agreement at the rental counter. I agree that forced arbitration is a problem, but apps are pretty orthogonal to it. If you want to fight forced arbitration, then call your representative and work to raise awareness. Crusading against apps doesn't accomplish anything.