Yes, but the quote implied that non-infosec professionals did *wish* to install secondary offers. They made no statement about understanding the situation but about desire. "Desire" is the problem with that quote and what Penguinisto was pointing out.

It's not even a start. In fact, using such incredibly naive and faulty methods brings into question the rest of your post and weakens your argument.

Guilty or not, Valve reserves the right to take away from the user every purchase they have ever made on Steam, for any reason, with no legal recourse. Why anyone would agree to those terms I do not understand.

What one controls in this situation is to whom one shares one's account number. Not sharing financial information with the likes of PayPal is the solution.

Changing my bank account to get PayPal to comply with my wishes is silly. Not to mention that a closed account still permits withdrawals for 90 days or more, reopening the account, drawing it negative, incurring banking fees and requiring a rigmarole of banking paperwork to rectify.

This is why I would never give any company I do not trust fully my bank account number. PayPal is not a company I trust fully as they've shown they use obscure internal rules to determine which accounts they freeze and unfreeze with no oversight.

If you read what denis-The-menace wrote, you'll see Facebook could ask users to give their private key to their (presumably closed-source) client, which could do anything with it. Responding with suspecting them of having some method of deriving the private key, or that uneducated users would really only give Facebook public keys, or Facebook hacking desktops does not address denis-The-menace's actual concern: public-key cryptography is very easy to exploit when the user-base is uneducated in its use, and Facebook offering such a new service to the masses is exactly the path one would follow to inspire users to feel secure all the while sabotaging them.

I am not sure I agree with denis-The-menace, but I wanted to point out that you didn't actually address his actual concern.

If they did, were ad free, and had a back catalog of things to watch, I'd pay that. Sadly, they don't offer that and the ads are a deal breaker. They instead get no viewership from me, paid or otherwise.

I would.

The HBO ads shown in their Now streams can be skipped, at least. I wonder if the same is true for Netflix ads.

I don't know. I don't need to decrypt anything. The television I watch is unencrypted. I don't pay anything per month for renting hardware or subscribing to channels which are already beamed through my home.

I used to pay for cable channels which, to make room for more internet bandwidth, were further and further compressed every month until compression artefacts were so common as to be distracting. It wasn't long before the service they were providing, which was getting worse over time, was not worth the cost they were asking, which was getting worse over time. That was ten years ago now.

If I were recording it, we would be talking about something different than live TV. I was replying to a comment about how a HTPC was necessary to watch live TV.

Why does one need a PC sitting next to the TV to watch TV? My TV has a tuner.

So, capitalism is not mandatory, then. It is the best system we have found, thus far. As you agree, there are certain issues with capitalism. Do you feel we should not look for alternatives or improvements, then?

In this particular case, it appears that the owners of the capital enterprise attempted to shift the risk onto the employees by not paying them their due when the business was doing poorly.

You say it is necessary but then give three examples of alternatives you consider worse. Which is it, the only option, or, in your opinion, the best option?