If your theory of ethics is "when people trust me I can do anything I want to them", then we are at best on opposite sides of an ethical chasm. But I'm not sure that "I will take advantage of anybody I can" qualifies as ethics at all.
It's not really taking advantage if they gave it to you consensually. You're not taking anything from them, they're not losing anything, they gave you info voluntarily, you're just selling it.
That's just ridiculous. So much of taking advantage is in the context of apparent consent. Confidence games, for example. Abusive relationships are by and large consensual. Shitty bosses take advantage of workers all the time, even those those workers are there voluntarily.
Comparing a very common business practice today to an abusive relationship? Really? Merely to call it "taking advantage of" is highly questionable - often it's just part of the deal - you get a free service, that's how you pay. No one is taken advantage of, it's mutally advantageous.
There is no substance to this reply. You just dismiss my points without addressing them and assert as true things that are disputed. You conflate is with ought, and normal with moral.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but at this point I'm not sure it matters.
So let's just clarify quick here, you're on a tech focused startup oriented site, making comments saying that you genuinely think that one the most common tech startup business models is immoral in its entirety and that people don't have the free will to choose it, because it's inherently that abusive?
I disagree - in both situations, they gave you something for one purpose, and you used it for a different purpose that they didn't consent to. They didn't give you their info so that you could sell it.
What's the difference between someone being 'stupid' enough to accidentally give you access to their money and someone being 'stupid' enough to give you their private information?
