Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Artificial intelligence

2026-02-06T00:04:38Z

PixelRunner: /* Unwilling/non-consumer protection? */ Reply

==Scope?==

This article is wordy and I'm not sure how it's directly relevant to consumer rights. Scraping the internet and data collection may be seen as unethical, but they're pretty run-of-the-mill at this point. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 01:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that the article needs significant revision. It has more detail than needed on some areas (e.g. web scraping), and totally misses other important areas.
:I see AI more as a theme/background article. AI is so pervasive now, and affects people in so many ways, that I think it makes sense to have at least one article on it.
:Things that I think such an article should cover include:
:*Data centers - environmental impacts, community impacts, energy demand and subsidy by electricity and water rate payers, and how many of these agreements are made in secret, even in nominally democratic/open governmental systems. In the US data centers are often located in marginalized communities, where people are not as organized to protect their community . (This is not exclusively an AI thing might be worth a separate article about data centers in general, covering crypto mining operations, etc.)
:*Inaccuracy and inappropriate use of LLM. "Hallucinations" People not understanding what an LLM is and assuming they are more capable than they are. LLM make a poor substitute for human written product reviews. (Inaccurate, praises whatever the user wants - even products that don't exist.)
:*Control of information - Use of LLM in place of search is decimating independent information sources (taking away advertising revenue, taking away views).
:*Intellectual property - piracy in training data (using stolen data), use of output.
:*Privacy and security - data poisoning, ease of subverting guardrails, gathering data for training, revealing prompts, law enforcement review of chatbot prompts and outputs, etc.
:*Concerns about possible effects on users - AI psychosis, etc.
:*Labor concerns - conditions of labelers/piece workers.
:*Liability - LLM are often inaccurate, what happens when the AI harms people (libel, suicide, etc.)
:I have sources for a bunch of this, will be adding them to the article talk page as time permits. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
::You're completely right. My mistake. This article does need significant reworking to maintain relevance, and a lot of the technical details should be simplified to maintain the wiki's voice and tone. But it's pretty relevant overall, so with time, it could fit better. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 19:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
::posted this on the moderator's noticeboard, but posting it again here:
::I'd caution here that I think quite a few of the practices listed probably wouldn't be within scope.
::Certainly the following:
::- Labour concerns
::- Intellectual property
::- Control of information/search blocking
::- Environmental/social impact of data centres
::Feel like they're out-of-scope as they concern relationships not relevant to the wiki, between businesses and other businesses/creatives, businesses and their employees/workers, as well as between businesses and the wider environment. To prevent scope creep, we want to keep the wiki focused on the consumer-rights issues.
::And these ones feel like 'edge cases' for relevancy - I'd appreciate some wider input:
::- Possible effects and harm on users from improper function (I'd argue that in a lot of cases there's not much to be done on this front, but I think if insufficient steps are taken to warn and safeguard users, then they could be mentioned. Certainly things like character.ai and similar do feel very exploitative, but I'm not sure I'd bundle the normal assistants under the same umbrella there)
::- Liability (I'd say this can be relevant, but the emphasis should be placed on situations where people create systems using AI that take decisions that really shouldn't be left to AI, and harm consumers that way. This is always going to be a fuzzy line, and I'd expect extensive discussion over it - it feels analogous to the question of 'at what point does someone getting injured by their own chainsaw go from being manufacturer negligence, to user error?')
::More broadly, I think that 'AI' probably isn't the best title for an article, as it's such a wide field. AI technically includes almost anything done by a computer. If we go by dictionary definitions, the computer opponents in old strategy games would count as 'AI'. LLMs, Generative image/video models, and traditional ML stuff like image recognition are all distinct enough, and are related to different issues, that it feels like they'd be better separated into their own articles, rather than bundled. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Since AI is so pervasive as a marketing term, I think it appropriate to have an article on it. If nothing else, to give an easy to find roadmap of other related articles that cover aspects. For example, I would not expect the layman to know what generative AI, or LLMs are - even if much of the content of concern here winds up under such sub-articles.
:::I agree that subdivisiion probably makes sense. However, at this point I don't have a clear idea of what bits to split off. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I am unclear why those particular items seem out of scope. Perhaps you could give more detail? What scoping rule do they violate? Is it because they are primarily "old" consumer concerns, rather than "new" ones? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 09:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Upon rereading @[[User:Keith|Keith]]'s post, I think maybe I see a bit of how we see these issues differently. I see all of the issues I mentioned through the lense of how they affect the general public. (Whether users, or non-users who are affected by AI or its uses.) Therefore, I see them all as "consumer" issues. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 10:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I think the primary point of difference we have is over that definition of 'consumer'. For me, I think if we don't keep that to just being the consumer-company relationship, it would result in pretty major scope creep for the wiki overall (you can imagine how many things could be brought into scope across a wide range of circumstances). There might be some flexibility in the definition of 'consumer' (e.g. I think you could potentially count small businesses as consumers in a context where they're buying a major peice of equipment from a supplier, and the supplier is messing them about), but I think for the wiki it always has to be 'someone who is purchasing products or services (paying with either their money or their data in the case of social media etc.), and is being subjected to unfair terms when doing so.
:::::I'd absolutely appreciate further input on this, as I don't think it's a completely settled issue for the wiki, and the boundries of what is and isn't in-scope are not firmly drawn yet. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 13:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] is making some important points. I think it will take a lot of work, but this article can be restructured to be within scope. The core issue I see with it as of now is broadness and generalized issues. If this theme article could be structured around real incidents and very specific issues and such, it makes for a good article. I can work on it a bit to get it up to a higher quality standard, at least reworking the structure itself (and the text secondary) [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::A hypothetical question on the scope: What about the relation between a citizen and a government, government agency? Would that be in scope or out of scope for the wiki? (I couldn't find anything that said one way or the other about this in the guidelines. If this is spelled out someplace already, maybe it could be made clearer in the inclusion guidelines.)
::::::To me, governments (and govt. agencies) seem similar to corporations, but obviously there are also differences. (Would a church or a university count as a corporation?)
::::::Presumably an issue between a private utility and customers would be in scope. What about a public utility?
::::::Another example, Albania just appointed an AI as a "minister" to oversee procurement. If that AI were to do a rug-pull for example on a bunch of individuals, how would one figure out the scope?
::::::I am inclined to think including governments in addition to corporations may make sense. But I does that open up another hairy can of worms? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 03:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] for the above. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 03:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The more I look, the more I am getting confused about scope. Looking at the listing of Mr. Rossman's videos on this wiki [[Louis Rossmann - Video Directory]] (many of which seem to be prompting having an article made relating to them), I clearly don't see what makes something a company & consumer issue.
:::::::Specifically: Items about stripe, square and visa charging fees to small businesses (maybe I can see this, if small business is considered a gray area). Bunch of things about military and right to repair, (where is the consumer in that?). John Deere vs. farmers - what fraction of that is is individual consumers (as compared to small/midsized/large business).
:::::::Note, my intention is not to criticize here, I appreciate the work people are putting in on this. I am not saying any of the above should not be here, I am just trying to figure out why those are okay, but not some of the items above.
:::::::For example, what about DRM where [[Medical ventilators]] have to be blessed by factory authorized dealer? (Which was an issue at the beginning of covid, when suddenly a lot of ventilators were needed.) [This affected patients ("consumers"), but it is nominally between a business and a hospital (i.e., a business or governmental entity).]
:::::::If this needs discussion, it should probably be in some more visible talk page. Feel free to link to a better spot, or I will look for a better spot to ask when I get time. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I agree completely that we need more clarity, and it's not something I have a fully formed idea of - it's conversations like these that will be essential to working out exactly where we draw the line. I'm starting to lean towards the ides of classing a 'consumer' as 'the buyer in a buyer-seller relationship, where an individual buyer, or the users of a purchased device, does/do not have sufficient leverage to affect the practices of the seller'.
::::::::--
::::::::The video directory is more of a 'here's a bunch of stuff, some of it will probably be relevant' situation, so it shouldn't be automatically expected that what's on there is in scope. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::For the question on Governments, maybe a better way to look at it is a consumer-seller relationship, rather than explicitly a consumer-'company' one. I think any rule that would allow an article about a private utility doing something, but not a public one, would be silly.
:::::::This pulls into the question, though, articles like [[Flock license plate readers]]. My 'gut feeling' is that this is an article that belongs on the wiki, however I acknowledge that the framework I've constructed would most likely exclude it (which probably means the framework needs adjusting, or clarifying). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 23:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Control of information.''' Access to information is one of the central pillars of right to repair. Since AI radically changes what information people access, I am missing why it is out of scope.
:::AI summaries in search lead to: Loss of independent journalism.[https://www.404media.co/the-medias-pivot-to-ai-is-not-real-and-not-going-to-work/ The Media's Pivot to AI Is Not Real and Not Going to Work] Loss of review sights. Reviews provided by AI regurgitate manufacturer specs, give incorrect information about products, give questionable recommendations.[https://housefresh.com/beware-of-the-google-ai-salesman/ Beware of the Google AI salesman and its cronies] I haven't seen sources on this, but I see no reason why sites that post repair information/fora would be exempted from this widespread pattern.
:::While not as far as I know related to AI, Mr. Rossman recently noted that his repair business is no longer listed on Google. He said that is a big deal for the size of a repair business like his. That may make it harder for people to exercise the right to repair. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 09:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Definitely consumer concerns and therefore I think worth mentioning. The cost of AI is largely hidden. Simply acknowledging that these are consumer concerns with AI, and pointing to good places to get started with the issues. In an overview article, if we only list "new" consumer concerns, it may make things needlessly difficult for the reader.
:::'''Data Centers.''' Electricity rates are projected to go up precipitously because of AI. Pollution and greenhouse gasses affect everybody. (MS, Google missing carbon reduction goals because of AI.) Tax subsidies are paid for by broad segments of the population.
::::In siting an AI data center, the local commissioners and the company typically make the secret deal, where the company gets public subsidy of electricity, taxes, water, etc., and the community gets a few jobs (at several million per job), plus whatever other arrangements. Even though consumers are excluded from the negotiations, that is still a consumer issue, since consumers pay the electricity rates, they breathe the air polluted by the on-site gas generators, they have their wells polluted by excessive water draw, they deal with noise pollution, the community has to deal with the electronic waste, etc. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 10:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Labor concerns.''' People make choices about clothing brands based on how the people making the clothes are treated. Why should it be different with AI. Just because I am not the person getting [bleeped] by the corporation, doesn't mean it is only between the business and the employee. Sure, not everybody cares, but I think clippies might. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 09:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Intellectual property''' Perhaps I could have picked a more evocative title? For the purposes of AI, every person is a "creative." This concerns use of your e-mails/facebook posts/tweets/photographs/security camera footage/footage from your roomba/footage from your cars cameras/etc. for training AI. Ownerships of the logs of where you go, what you buy (and where and when). Who you communicate with. Ownership of your medical scans. The output of your medical monitors (CGM, CPAP, pacemaker, smart watch, etc.), and their use in training/advertising/whatever. Publication of your AI queries, your chat logs. Use of AI responses. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 09:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I suppose "big data" might be a useful adjunct term to use here. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 10:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I think the way in which the terms of many services unreasonably opt you into AI training off your private data without properly, where it is framed as an anti-consumer contract term, is reasonable for inclusion. I'm less sure about the blatant grabbing of works visible in the public space, as this doesn't feel like as much of a consumer issue.
::::In a similar way, if there was a spate of phone repair companies using bullshit terms to refuse to return phones sent in for repair, that would fit the wiki, but if an organized crime gang was running a phone theft ring across a country, that would not fit the wiki. Both are stealing your phone, but the way in which it is being done is relevant as to whether it should be included in the Wiki. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 13:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::without properly informing the user or giving them a choice* [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 14:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::On second thought, after re-reading this article in more detail, it seems like the only argument being made here is about unethical web scraping, which has no direct harm on consumers. Like you said, there are specific ways in which AI/LLM can be inherently anti-consumer, but that leans more toward specific incidents and company practice.
:::In summation, I do not think this article can be salvaged, and I think it should be deleted. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I want to work on an article for the wiki about AI/LLM someplace where the whole business (talk page and article) isn't imminently going to disappear.
::::If by deleted you mean, you want to overwrite everything in this version of the article with something different, I have no particular opinion about that. (If bebold is a thing here, then bebold.)
::::If there had not been an article on AI, I would have started a draft on my personal page (if one can do that here). Since there is something here, there may be value in continuing it where multiple people can contribute.
::::If you want the article and talk page and all deleted, I would prefer not. As an alternative to deletion - Is there some way to mark this article as a draft/needing significant revision? (Most of my wiki experience is on wikipedia. I am still trying to pick up the policies/systems/etc. here.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I should've been more descriptive. The way I see it, an article trying to outline why AI is bad or anti-consumer is like trying to say how social media is anti-consumer, or the internet is anti-consumer, etc. They're all simply too broad to write about. And, in reality, they're just tools. Social media can be anti-consumer in many ways, but it can be pro-consumer as well. Same with AI.
:::::The only way I could see this article remaining is if it narrows the scope to common practices found all across AI/LLM's, which would only happen if incidents are compiled from ChatGPT, Claude, etc.. and even then, that's me being optimistic about it. I still can't see that working out in the long term. This wiki is based on advocacy, which means that the articles have to specifically detail events or practices that violate consumer rights in a tangible, direct way. Not indirectly. Not abstractly. Things that can be pointed to in a court of law.
:::::Keith is the admin here, so I defer to him of course. But what I expressed above is just my personal take on it as a moderator and from what I've grasped from the other moderators, from the wiki policy, from Louis himself (in videos), etc. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 04:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::(also @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]]) I think there can be a place for an AI article, and there's definitely consumer-relevant stuff to talk about, and we certainly shouldn't do anything that would nuke this talk page (as I imagine this is a discussion which will come up again). For now, I'd say having this be a large page where we include all the broadly AI-related consumer protection issues makes sense, and it serves as a good place to discuss which sub-sections ought to be included. It might be that later on, the 'AI' page gets reduced to a very short page which mostly serves to act as a hub between various, more specific, pages on things like LLM platforms, upselling of AI integrations, whatever else - but it will need to be a big page before it can become a small page (if that makes sense).
::::::@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] I think any article like this would be classified as a 'theme' article, which can address broader trends without invoking specific examples at every stage (though citations and examples are, of course, always welcome).
::::::Regardless, I think the overarching objective of this article shouldn't be "an article trying to outline why AI is bad or anti-consumer" (not saying that's what it is at the moment, just addressing Beanie's point), but rather "here is a collection of descriptions of the anti-consumer practices commonly associated with AI", with (for now) subsections that talk about different such practices, and eventually links to other articles that go into those areas in more detail. I think people are often going to want to click on an article called "AI", and that this would be the best way of making an "AI" article useful and informative to a reader without straying from the scope of the wiki. Does that sound sensible? [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] Sounds sensible to me. Pretty much what I was thinking. Here is what might help a consumer understand as background to specific cases about "AI". [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal posted re proposed deletion==

I posted an appeal request regarding article deletion. Things I would like to see in this article are listed under scope. I think easier to edit existing article than start new one.
If you have an opinion one-way or the other, please add on to the appeal discussion on the moderator page (wouldn't want multiple appeals). Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

==Sources - potentially useful==

General sources:

Pivot to AI. https://pivot-to-ai.com/ By UK journalist David Gerard. Daily news item about AI. He wrote about cryptocurrency. He noticed that many of the same people who had been promoting crypto took the same pitches and applied them to AI. So he similarly pivoted to AI.

Ed Zitron's Where's Your Ed At https://www.wheresyoured.at/ Journalist and PR professional, reports on financial aspects of AI.

[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

==FYI - Moved web scraping section==

There was a large section on web scraping. I moved it to a sub-article ([[Artificial intelligence/training]]) just to make this article easier to manage. I guess there had been a separate article about web scraping, which got deleted recently.

Basically, I don't much want to deal with the web scraping thing (which includes me even trying to figure out if I think it belongs here or should be deleted). This way it is here if we want anything from it later. Please let me know if there is a preferred way to do this. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 01:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

==Ways in which AI hurts consumers==

If this article is going to stay, may as well add some noteworthy incidents/sources.

- AI decides who gets health coverage [https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/health-care-counsel-blog/health-insurers-sued-over-use-artificial-intelligence-deny Health Insurers Sued Over Use of Artificial Intelligence to Deny Medical Claims]

- AI decides who gets loans [https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2021/09/02/ai-bias-caused-80-of-black-mortgage-applicants-to-be-denied/ A.I. Bias Caused 80% Of Black Mortgage Applicants To Be Denied]

- AI decides who gets a job [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai-hired-fired-promotion-managers/ AI could determine whether you get hired or fired as more managers rely on the technology at work]

- AI decides how much rent you pay [https://themarkup.org/locked-out/2024/12/02/landlords-are-using-ai-to-raise-rents-and-cities-are-starting-to-push-back Landlords Are Using AI To Raise Rents — and Cities Are Starting To Push Back]

- AI tells a 16 year old how to commit suicide [https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/26/tech/openai-chatgpt-teen-suicide-lawsuit Parents of 16-year-old sue OpenAI, claiming ChatGPT advised on his suicide]

- AI decides who lives and dies as a weapon of mass destruction [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes ‘The machine did it coldly’: Israel used AI to identify 37,000 Hamas targets]

- AI lobbies against regulations for consumer safety [https://issueone.org/articles/as-washington-debates-major-tech-and-ai-policy-changes-big-techs-lobbying-is-relentless/ As Washington Debates Major Tech and AI Policy Changes, Big Tech’s Lobbying is Relentless]

- AI squanders your right to protest [https://www.vice.com/en/article/six-federal-agencies-used-facial-recognition-on-george-floyd-protestors/ Six Federal Agencies Used Facial Recognition On George Floyd Protestors]

- AI blames China to avoid regulation [https://fortune.com/2025/05/08/sam-altman-openai-senate-hearing-testimony-china-ai-regulations/ Sam Altman urges lawmakers against regulations that could ‘slow down’ U.S. in AI race against China]

But sure. They'll cure cancer... eventually. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 18:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

==Data centers?==

I’ve heard mentions of the data centers that the Artificial Intelligence models (generative machines) use cause electricity inflation (in local areas they exist, the price of electricity goes up, as they supposedly do not pay their own bills). Could this be relevant to this topic here? [[User:Aus2004|Aus2004]] ([[User talk:Aus2004|talk]]) 06:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

==Unwilling/non-consumer protection?==

Would non-consumers of AI getting negatively impacted by AI products in intrusive ways that should only affect willing participants and users of the product (not to imply that unethical AI practices would be made ethical if they only affected willing AI users) be considered within the scope as far as consumer rights goes?

This could cover stuff like:

- Mass data scraping of internet content regardless of the willingness of its authors to contribute to the training of the AI or the rights to use IP and likenesses of people for the AI company's gain

- AI being used for mass-surveillance, examples including, but not limited to, Flock cameras and Palantir

- The intrusive push for AI use in everyday software products, examples being Gemini being forcibly enabled in Google searches, causing websites in search results to lose traffic, Google tying search crawlers with AI crawlers (basically using the same crawler for both purposes) to force any website to either be scraped or be delisted, YouTube's forced auto-dubbing of videos in different languages and upscaling of Shorts, anything Microsoft is doing with Copilot, etc.

- Control of information, "AI slop", Disinformation (seriously, what is the purpose of trying to make AI videos indistinguishable from the real thing?), etc.

[[User:PixelRunner|PixelRunner]] ([[User talk:PixelRunner|talk]]) 23:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

:This would also cover a lot of incidents that @[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] listed, like deciding who gets health coverage, loans, jobs, etc. [[User:PixelRunner|PixelRunner]] ([[User talk:PixelRunner|talk]]) 00:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Artificial intelligence

2026-02-05T23:59:34Z

PixelRunner: /* Unwilling/non-consumer protection? */ new section

==Scope?==

This article is wordy and I'm not sure how it's directly relevant to consumer rights. Scraping the internet and data collection may be seen as unethical, but they're pretty run-of-the-mill at this point. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 01:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that the article needs significant revision. It has more detail than needed on some areas (e.g. web scraping), and totally misses other important areas.
:I see AI more as a theme/background article. AI is so pervasive now, and affects people in so many ways, that I think it makes sense to have at least one article on it.
:Things that I think such an article should cover include:
:*Data centers - environmental impacts, community impacts, energy demand and subsidy by electricity and water rate payers, and how many of these agreements are made in secret, even in nominally democratic/open governmental systems. In the US data centers are often located in marginalized communities, where people are not as organized to protect their community . (This is not exclusively an AI thing might be worth a separate article about data centers in general, covering crypto mining operations, etc.)
:*Inaccuracy and inappropriate use of LLM. "Hallucinations" People not understanding what an LLM is and assuming they are more capable than they are. LLM make a poor substitute for human written product reviews. (Inaccurate, praises whatever the user wants - even products that don't exist.)
:*Control of information - Use of LLM in place of search is decimating independent information sources (taking away advertising revenue, taking away views).
:*Intellectual property - piracy in training data (using stolen data), use of output.
:*Privacy and security - data poisoning, ease of subverting guardrails, gathering data for training, revealing prompts, law enforcement review of chatbot prompts and outputs, etc.
:*Concerns about possible effects on users - AI psychosis, etc.
:*Labor concerns - conditions of labelers/piece workers.
:*Liability - LLM are often inaccurate, what happens when the AI harms people (libel, suicide, etc.)
:I have sources for a bunch of this, will be adding them to the article talk page as time permits. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
::You're completely right. My mistake. This article does need significant reworking to maintain relevance, and a lot of the technical details should be simplified to maintain the wiki's voice and tone. But it's pretty relevant overall, so with time, it could fit better. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 19:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
::posted this on the moderator's noticeboard, but posting it again here:
::I'd caution here that I think quite a few of the practices listed probably wouldn't be within scope.
::Certainly the following:
::- Labour concerns
::- Intellectual property
::- Control of information/search blocking
::- Environmental/social impact of data centres
::Feel like they're out-of-scope as they concern relationships not relevant to the wiki, between businesses and other businesses/creatives, businesses and their employees/workers, as well as between businesses and the wider environment. To prevent scope creep, we want to keep the wiki focused on the consumer-rights issues.
::And these ones feel like 'edge cases' for relevancy - I'd appreciate some wider input:
::- Possible effects and harm on users from improper function (I'd argue that in a lot of cases there's not much to be done on this front, but I think if insufficient steps are taken to warn and safeguard users, then they could be mentioned. Certainly things like character.ai and similar do feel very exploitative, but I'm not sure I'd bundle the normal assistants under the same umbrella there)
::- Liability (I'd say this can be relevant, but the emphasis should be placed on situations where people create systems using AI that take decisions that really shouldn't be left to AI, and harm consumers that way. This is always going to be a fuzzy line, and I'd expect extensive discussion over it - it feels analogous to the question of 'at what point does someone getting injured by their own chainsaw go from being manufacturer negligence, to user error?')
::More broadly, I think that 'AI' probably isn't the best title for an article, as it's such a wide field. AI technically includes almost anything done by a computer. If we go by dictionary definitions, the computer opponents in old strategy games would count as 'AI'. LLMs, Generative image/video models, and traditional ML stuff like image recognition are all distinct enough, and are related to different issues, that it feels like they'd be better separated into their own articles, rather than bundled. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Since AI is so pervasive as a marketing term, I think it appropriate to have an article on it. If nothing else, to give an easy to find roadmap of other related articles that cover aspects. For example, I would not expect the layman to know what generative AI, or LLMs are - even if much of the content of concern here winds up under such sub-articles.
:::I agree that subdivisiion probably makes sense. However, at this point I don't have a clear idea of what bits to split off. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I am unclear why those particular items seem out of scope. Perhaps you could give more detail? What scoping rule do they violate? Is it because they are primarily "old" consumer concerns, rather than "new" ones? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 09:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Upon rereading @[[User:Keith|Keith]]'s post, I think maybe I see a bit of how we see these issues differently. I see all of the issues I mentioned through the lense of how they affect the general public. (Whether users, or non-users who are affected by AI or its uses.) Therefore, I see them all as "consumer" issues. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 10:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I think the primary point of difference we have is over that definition of 'consumer'. For me, I think if we don't keep that to just being the consumer-company relationship, it would result in pretty major scope creep for the wiki overall (you can imagine how many things could be brought into scope across a wide range of circumstances). There might be some flexibility in the definition of 'consumer' (e.g. I think you could potentially count small businesses as consumers in a context where they're buying a major peice of equipment from a supplier, and the supplier is messing them about), but I think for the wiki it always has to be 'someone who is purchasing products or services (paying with either their money or their data in the case of social media etc.), and is being subjected to unfair terms when doing so.
:::::I'd absolutely appreciate further input on this, as I don't think it's a completely settled issue for the wiki, and the boundries of what is and isn't in-scope are not firmly drawn yet. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 13:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] is making some important points. I think it will take a lot of work, but this article can be restructured to be within scope. The core issue I see with it as of now is broadness and generalized issues. If this theme article could be structured around real incidents and very specific issues and such, it makes for a good article. I can work on it a bit to get it up to a higher quality standard, at least reworking the structure itself (and the text secondary) [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::A hypothetical question on the scope: What about the relation between a citizen and a government, government agency? Would that be in scope or out of scope for the wiki? (I couldn't find anything that said one way or the other about this in the guidelines. If this is spelled out someplace already, maybe it could be made clearer in the inclusion guidelines.)
::::::To me, governments (and govt. agencies) seem similar to corporations, but obviously there are also differences. (Would a church or a university count as a corporation?)
::::::Presumably an issue between a private utility and customers would be in scope. What about a public utility?
::::::Another example, Albania just appointed an AI as a "minister" to oversee procurement. If that AI were to do a rug-pull for example on a bunch of individuals, how would one figure out the scope?
::::::I am inclined to think including governments in addition to corporations may make sense. But I does that open up another hairy can of worms? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 03:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] for the above. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 03:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The more I look, the more I am getting confused about scope. Looking at the listing of Mr. Rossman's videos on this wiki [[Louis Rossmann - Video Directory]] (many of which seem to be prompting having an article made relating to them), I clearly don't see what makes something a company & consumer issue.
:::::::Specifically: Items about stripe, square and visa charging fees to small businesses (maybe I can see this, if small business is considered a gray area). Bunch of things about military and right to repair, (where is the consumer in that?). John Deere vs. farmers - what fraction of that is is individual consumers (as compared to small/midsized/large business).
:::::::Note, my intention is not to criticize here, I appreciate the work people are putting in on this. I am not saying any of the above should not be here, I am just trying to figure out why those are okay, but not some of the items above.
:::::::For example, what about DRM where [[Medical ventilators]] have to be blessed by factory authorized dealer? (Which was an issue at the beginning of covid, when suddenly a lot of ventilators were needed.) [This affected patients ("consumers"), but it is nominally between a business and a hospital (i.e., a business or governmental entity).]
:::::::If this needs discussion, it should probably be in some more visible talk page. Feel free to link to a better spot, or I will look for a better spot to ask when I get time. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I agree completely that we need more clarity, and it's not something I have a fully formed idea of - it's conversations like these that will be essential to working out exactly where we draw the line. I'm starting to lean towards the ides of classing a 'consumer' as 'the buyer in a buyer-seller relationship, where an individual buyer, or the users of a purchased device, does/do not have sufficient leverage to affect the practices of the seller'.
::::::::--
::::::::The video directory is more of a 'here's a bunch of stuff, some of it will probably be relevant' situation, so it shouldn't be automatically expected that what's on there is in scope. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::For the question on Governments, maybe a better way to look at it is a consumer-seller relationship, rather than explicitly a consumer-'company' one. I think any rule that would allow an article about a private utility doing something, but not a public one, would be silly.
:::::::This pulls into the question, though, articles like [[Flock license plate readers]]. My 'gut feeling' is that this is an article that belongs on the wiki, however I acknowledge that the framework I've constructed would most likely exclude it (which probably means the framework needs adjusting, or clarifying). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 23:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Control of information.''' Access to information is one of the central pillars of right to repair. Since AI radically changes what information people access, I am missing why it is out of scope.
:::AI summaries in search lead to: Loss of independent journalism.[https://www.404media.co/the-medias-pivot-to-ai-is-not-real-and-not-going-to-work/ The Media's Pivot to AI Is Not Real and Not Going to Work] Loss of review sights. Reviews provided by AI regurgitate manufacturer specs, give incorrect information about products, give questionable recommendations.[https://housefresh.com/beware-of-the-google-ai-salesman/ Beware of the Google AI salesman and its cronies] I haven't seen sources on this, but I see no reason why sites that post repair information/fora would be exempted from this widespread pattern.
:::While not as far as I know related to AI, Mr. Rossman recently noted that his repair business is no longer listed on Google. He said that is a big deal for the size of a repair business like his. That may make it harder for people to exercise the right to repair. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 09:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Definitely consumer concerns and therefore I think worth mentioning. The cost of AI is largely hidden. Simply acknowledging that these are consumer concerns with AI, and pointing to good places to get started with the issues. In an overview article, if we only list "new" consumer concerns, it may make things needlessly difficult for the reader.
:::'''Data Centers.''' Electricity rates are projected to go up precipitously because of AI. Pollution and greenhouse gasses affect everybody. (MS, Google missing carbon reduction goals because of AI.) Tax subsidies are paid for by broad segments of the population.
::::In siting an AI data center, the local commissioners and the company typically make the secret deal, where the company gets public subsidy of electricity, taxes, water, etc., and the community gets a few jobs (at several million per job), plus whatever other arrangements. Even though consumers are excluded from the negotiations, that is still a consumer issue, since consumers pay the electricity rates, they breathe the air polluted by the on-site gas generators, they have their wells polluted by excessive water draw, they deal with noise pollution, the community has to deal with the electronic waste, etc. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 10:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Labor concerns.''' People make choices about clothing brands based on how the people making the clothes are treated. Why should it be different with AI. Just because I am not the person getting [bleeped] by the corporation, doesn't mean it is only between the business and the employee. Sure, not everybody cares, but I think clippies might. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 09:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Intellectual property''' Perhaps I could have picked a more evocative title? For the purposes of AI, every person is a "creative." This concerns use of your e-mails/facebook posts/tweets/photographs/security camera footage/footage from your roomba/footage from your cars cameras/etc. for training AI. Ownerships of the logs of where you go, what you buy (and where and when). Who you communicate with. Ownership of your medical scans. The output of your medical monitors (CGM, CPAP, pacemaker, smart watch, etc.), and their use in training/advertising/whatever. Publication of your AI queries, your chat logs. Use of AI responses. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 09:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I suppose "big data" might be a useful adjunct term to use here. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 10:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I think the way in which the terms of many services unreasonably opt you into AI training off your private data without properly, where it is framed as an anti-consumer contract term, is reasonable for inclusion. I'm less sure about the blatant grabbing of works visible in the public space, as this doesn't feel like as much of a consumer issue.
::::In a similar way, if there was a spate of phone repair companies using bullshit terms to refuse to return phones sent in for repair, that would fit the wiki, but if an organized crime gang was running a phone theft ring across a country, that would not fit the wiki. Both are stealing your phone, but the way in which it is being done is relevant as to whether it should be included in the Wiki. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 13:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::without properly informing the user or giving them a choice* [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 14:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::On second thought, after re-reading this article in more detail, it seems like the only argument being made here is about unethical web scraping, which has no direct harm on consumers. Like you said, there are specific ways in which AI/LLM can be inherently anti-consumer, but that leans more toward specific incidents and company practice.
:::In summation, I do not think this article can be salvaged, and I think it should be deleted. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I want to work on an article for the wiki about AI/LLM someplace where the whole business (talk page and article) isn't imminently going to disappear.
::::If by deleted you mean, you want to overwrite everything in this version of the article with something different, I have no particular opinion about that. (If bebold is a thing here, then bebold.)
::::If there had not been an article on AI, I would have started a draft on my personal page (if one can do that here). Since there is something here, there may be value in continuing it where multiple people can contribute.
::::If you want the article and talk page and all deleted, I would prefer not. As an alternative to deletion - Is there some way to mark this article as a draft/needing significant revision? (Most of my wiki experience is on wikipedia. I am still trying to pick up the policies/systems/etc. here.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I should've been more descriptive. The way I see it, an article trying to outline why AI is bad or anti-consumer is like trying to say how social media is anti-consumer, or the internet is anti-consumer, etc. They're all simply too broad to write about. And, in reality, they're just tools. Social media can be anti-consumer in many ways, but it can be pro-consumer as well. Same with AI.
:::::The only way I could see this article remaining is if it narrows the scope to common practices found all across AI/LLM's, which would only happen if incidents are compiled from ChatGPT, Claude, etc.. and even then, that's me being optimistic about it. I still can't see that working out in the long term. This wiki is based on advocacy, which means that the articles have to specifically detail events or practices that violate consumer rights in a tangible, direct way. Not indirectly. Not abstractly. Things that can be pointed to in a court of law.
:::::Keith is the admin here, so I defer to him of course. But what I expressed above is just my personal take on it as a moderator and from what I've grasped from the other moderators, from the wiki policy, from Louis himself (in videos), etc. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 04:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::(also @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]]) I think there can be a place for an AI article, and there's definitely consumer-relevant stuff to talk about, and we certainly shouldn't do anything that would nuke this talk page (as I imagine this is a discussion which will come up again). For now, I'd say having this be a large page where we include all the broadly AI-related consumer protection issues makes sense, and it serves as a good place to discuss which sub-sections ought to be included. It might be that later on, the 'AI' page gets reduced to a very short page which mostly serves to act as a hub between various, more specific, pages on things like LLM platforms, upselling of AI integrations, whatever else - but it will need to be a big page before it can become a small page (if that makes sense).
::::::@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] I think any article like this would be classified as a 'theme' article, which can address broader trends without invoking specific examples at every stage (though citations and examples are, of course, always welcome).
::::::Regardless, I think the overarching objective of this article shouldn't be "an article trying to outline why AI is bad or anti-consumer" (not saying that's what it is at the moment, just addressing Beanie's point), but rather "here is a collection of descriptions of the anti-consumer practices commonly associated with AI", with (for now) subsections that talk about different such practices, and eventually links to other articles that go into those areas in more detail. I think people are often going to want to click on an article called "AI", and that this would be the best way of making an "AI" article useful and informative to a reader without straying from the scope of the wiki. Does that sound sensible? [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] Sounds sensible to me. Pretty much what I was thinking. Here is what might help a consumer understand as background to specific cases about "AI". [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal posted re proposed deletion==

I posted an appeal request regarding article deletion. Things I would like to see in this article are listed under scope. I think easier to edit existing article than start new one.
If you have an opinion one-way or the other, please add on to the appeal discussion on the moderator page (wouldn't want multiple appeals). Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

==Sources - potentially useful==

General sources:

Pivot to AI. https://pivot-to-ai.com/ By UK journalist David Gerard. Daily news item about AI. He wrote about cryptocurrency. He noticed that many of the same people who had been promoting crypto took the same pitches and applied them to AI. So he similarly pivoted to AI.

Ed Zitron's Where's Your Ed At https://www.wheresyoured.at/ Journalist and PR professional, reports on financial aspects of AI.

[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

== FYI - Moved web scraping section ==

There was a large section on web scraping. I moved it to a sub-article ([[Artificial intelligence/training]]) just to make this article easier to manage. I guess there had been a separate article about web scraping, which got deleted recently.

Basically, I don't much want to deal with the web scraping thing (which includes me even trying to figure out if I think it belongs here or should be deleted). This way it is here if we want anything from it later. Please let me know if there is a preferred way to do this. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 01:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

== Ways in which AI hurts consumers ==

If this article is going to stay, may as well add some noteworthy incidents/sources.

- AI decides who gets health coverage [https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/health-care-counsel-blog/health-insurers-sued-over-use-artificial-intelligence-deny Health Insurers Sued Over Use of Artificial Intelligence to Deny Medical Claims]

- AI decides who gets loans [https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2021/09/02/ai-bias-caused-80-of-black-mortgage-applicants-to-be-denied/ A.I. Bias Caused 80% Of Black Mortgage Applicants To Be Denied]

- AI decides who gets a job [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai-hired-fired-promotion-managers/ AI could determine whether you get hired or fired as more managers rely on the technology at work]

- AI decides how much rent you pay [https://themarkup.org/locked-out/2024/12/02/landlords-are-using-ai-to-raise-rents-and-cities-are-starting-to-push-back Landlords Are Using AI To Raise Rents — and Cities Are Starting To Push Back]

- AI tells a 16 year old how to commit suicide [https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/26/tech/openai-chatgpt-teen-suicide-lawsuit Parents of 16-year-old sue OpenAI, claiming ChatGPT advised on his suicide]

- AI decides who lives and dies as a weapon of mass destruction [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes ‘The machine did it coldly’: Israel used AI to identify 37,000 Hamas targets]

- AI lobbies against regulations for consumer safety [https://issueone.org/articles/as-washington-debates-major-tech-and-ai-policy-changes-big-techs-lobbying-is-relentless/ As Washington Debates Major Tech and AI Policy Changes, Big Tech’s Lobbying is Relentless]

- AI squanders your right to protest [https://www.vice.com/en/article/six-federal-agencies-used-facial-recognition-on-george-floyd-protestors/ Six Federal Agencies Used Facial Recognition On George Floyd Protestors]

- AI blames China to avoid regulation [https://fortune.com/2025/05/08/sam-altman-openai-senate-hearing-testimony-china-ai-regulations/ Sam Altman urges lawmakers against regulations that could ‘slow down’ U.S. in AI race against China]

But sure. They'll cure cancer... eventually. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 18:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

== Data centers? ==

I’ve heard mentions of the data centers that the Artificial Intelligence models (generative machines) use cause electricity inflation (in local areas they exist, the price of electricity goes up, as they supposedly do not pay their own bills). Could this be relevant to this topic here? [[User:Aus2004|Aus2004]] ([[User talk:Aus2004|talk]]) 06:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

== Unwilling/non-consumer protection? ==

Would non-consumers of AI getting negatively impacted by AI products in intrusive ways that should only affect willing participants and users of the product (not to imply that unethical AI practices would be made ethical if they only affected willing AI users) be considered within the scope as far as consumer rights goes?

This could cover stuff like:

- Mass data scraping of internet content regardless of the willingness of its authors to contribute to the training of the AI or the rights to use IP and likenesses of people for the AI company's gain

- AI being used for mass-surveillance, examples including, but not limited to, Flock cameras and Palantir

- The intrusive push for AI use in everyday software products, examples being Gemini being forcibly enabled in Google searches, causing websites in search results to lose traffic, Google tying search crawlers with AI crawlers (basically using the same crawler for both purposes) to force any website to either be scraped or be delisted, YouTube's forced auto-dubbing of videos in different languages and upscaling of Shorts, anything Microsoft is doing with Copilot, etc.

- Control of information, "AI slop", Disinformation (seriously, what is the purpose of trying to make AI videos indistinguishable from the real thing?), etc.

[[User:PixelRunner|PixelRunner]] ([[User talk:PixelRunner|talk]]) 23:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Article suggestions

2025-08-30T03:15:29Z

PixelRunner: /* Only incident pages suggested here? */ new section

Google Password Manager Overrides Third-Party Autofill on Android

(adding this here since I cannot edit the page. Happened to me personally and I have found evidence of it happening to more people)

Using third-party autofill (Bitwarden, 1Password) stopped working in Google Chrome for Android. Google Pass Manager is softly imposed for a more fluent user experience. Even deleting all the passwords and disabling Google Autofill does not work.

Sources:

https://community.bitwarden.com/t/issue-with-google-and-chrome-app-autofill-on-android/42901?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://community.bitwarden.com/t/android-autofill-service-automatically-disabled/44362?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://community.bitwarden.com/t/autofill-on-android-not-working/86323?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.techlicious.com/blog/update-this-setting-to-keep-1password-working-in-android-chrome/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

==suggestions list is uneditable for regular users==

for now I'll do a quick fix of moving the page outside of the CRW namespace. can work out a better way later [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

:hi @[[User:Justanuser|Justanuser]] - I've moved the page to mainspace so that people can edit it. I've also confirmed you as a user, so you shouldn't have to deal with any mroe captchas, and you should be able to create talk page discussions properly [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

== Printers page ==

I feel like there needs to be a guide or smth along those lines on Printers as a whole. Which brands to avoid, what brands to shortlist, what things to consider, etc. Maybe we could bundle in 3D printers while we're at it? [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

== Only incident pages suggested here? ==

I'm not sure if there is a policy page I missed here, but I'm having some confusion regarding this page. It seems to only contain incident pages, despite this wiki also containing products, organizations, themes, etc. (according to [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Article_types]]), and this page being seemingly labeled as a general article suggestion page, not just for incidents. Could we use this page suggest more than just incidents, or is there another page for suggesting the other types of articles? [[User:PixelRunner|PixelRunner]] ([[User talk:PixelRunner|talk]]) 03:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Data brokers

2025-08-18T02:13:17Z

PixelRunner: added some links, mostly wanted links though.

'''[[wikipedia:Data_broker|Data brokers]]''' are companies that collect, aggregate, analyze, and sell personal information about consumers without having a direct relationship with those individuals.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ftc.gov/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency-accountability-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014 |title=Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability: A Report of the Federal Trade Commission |publisher=Federal Trade Commission |date=May 2014 |access-date=2025-05-07}}</ref> These companies operate largely behind the scenes of the digital economy, accumulating vast databases of consumer information from both public and private sources to create detailed profiles used primarily for marketing, risk assessment, and other business purposes.

==How they work==

Data brokers obtain personal information through various channels:<ref>{{cite web |url=https://privacyrights.org/data-brokers |title=Data Brokers |publisher=Privacy Rights Clearinghouse |access-date=2025-05-07}}</ref>

*Collection from public records (court records, property records, voter registrations)
*Purchase of consumer data from other companies (retailers, financial institutions, social media platforms)
*Scraping of publicly available information from websites and social media
*Inference of additional data points through analysis and algorithms
*Tracking of online behavior through cookies, device fingerprinting, and other technologies

Once collected, this data is processed, combined, and categorized to create detailed consumer profiles. These profiles are then sold or licensed to third parties for various purposes, including targeted advertising, credit decisioning, insurance underwriting, and fraud prevention.

==Consumer impact==

===Privacy erosion===
Data brokers collect and process vast amounts of personal information, often without consumers' knowledge or meaningful consent. Many consumers are unaware of the extent of information being collected about them, who has access to it, or how it's being used.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/01/15/1086513/the-ftcs-unprecedented-move-against-data-brokers-explained/ |title=The FTC's unprecedented move against data brokers, explained |publisher=MIT Technology Review |date=January 15, 2024 |access-date=2025-05-07}}</ref> This creates a fundamental asymmetry of information and power between data brokers and consumers.

===Limited transparency and choice===
Consumers typically have minimal visibility into data broker practices and limited ability to control the collection and use of their personal information. Unlike direct business relationships where consumers can choose to engage with a company, data brokers collect information about consumers without establishing a direct relationship, making it difficult for individuals to exercise choice regarding their data.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://privacyrights.org/resources/tutorial-data-brokers-and-people-search-sites |title=Tutorial: Data Brokers and People Search Sites |publisher=Privacy Rights Clearinghouse |access-date=2025-05-07}}</ref>

===Potential for discrimination===
Data broker profiles can potentially enable discriminatory practices when used for decisions regarding credit, insurance, employment, or housing. By categorizing consumers based on various attributes, data brokers create segments that can serve as proxies for protected characteristics like race, religion, or socioeconomic status, even when those characteristics aren't explicitly identified.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://epic.org/issues/consumer-privacy/data-brokers/ |title=Data Brokers |publisher=Electronic Privacy Information Center |access-date=2025-05-07}}</ref>

===Security vulnerabilities===
The consolidation of large volumes of personal data creates security risks. Data brokers become attractive targets for hackers, and breaches of these vast repositories can expose sensitive personal information of millions of consumers, leading to identity theft and other forms of fraud.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/closing-data-broker-loophole |title=Closing the Data Broker Loophole |publisher=Brennan Center for Justice |access-date=2025-05-07}}</ref>
And with the search for indemnification related to being held harmless for such breaches, it is becoming harder and harder to hold these companies accountable.

==Examples of major data brokers==

===Acxiom/LiveRamp===
[[LiveRamp]] (formerly Acxiom) is one of the largest data brokers globally, maintaining detailed profiles on hundreds of millions of consumers. The company's data onboarding services connect offline customer data with online identifiers, enabling cross-device tracking and targeted advertising.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://partner-directory.liveramp.com/partners/oracle-data-cloud-bluekai |title=Oracle Data Cloud (BlueKai) |website=LiveRamp |access-date=2025-05-07}}</ref> LiveRamp has faced criticism for its extensive data collection practices and the creation of unique identifiers called "RampIDs" that connect individuals' online and offline identities without transparent consumer consent.

===Experian===
Beyond its role as a credit reporting agency, [[Experian]] operates as a major data broker, offering marketing services that leverage vast amounts of consumer information. Through its Experian Marketing Services division, the company provides audience segmentation, targeting, and identity resolution products based on consumer data.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://builtin.com/articles/top-data-broker-companies |title=10 Top Data Broker Companies |website=Built In |date=November 12, 2024 |access-date=2025-05-07}}</ref>

===Oracle Data Cloud===
[[Oracle Data Cloud]] (formerly BlueKai) provides data services that help marketers target consumers across digital channels. The platform processes trillions of data points monthly from various online and offline sources to create detailed audience profiles. In 2020, Oracle faced scrutiny after security researchers discovered billions of records from its BlueKai database had been left exposed on an unsecured server.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://themarkup.org/privacy/2021/04/01/the-little-known-data-broker-industry-is-spending-big-bucks-lobbying-congress |title=The Little-Known Data Broker Industry Is Spending Big Bucks Lobbying Congress |website=The Markup |date=April 1, 2021 |access-date=2025-05-07}}</ref>

===LexisNexis===
[[LexisNexis]] is a data broker with over 75 billion records covering over 95% of the adult US population, according to their website. Their primary market includes various government agencies, banks, insurance, and legal firms.<ref>{{Cite web |title=LexisNexis Risk Solutions |url=https://risk.lexisnexis.com/ |access-date=2025-05-09}}</ref> Since at least 2016 the Washington, DC Office of Tax Revenue has been using LexisNexis to identify taxpayers.<ref>{{Cite web |last=DC Office of Tax and Revenue |date=2016-02-29 |title=LexisNexis Risk Solutions Quiz FAQs |url=https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/release/lexisnexis-risk-solutions-quiz-faqs |url-status=live |access-date=2025-05-09}}</ref> DocuSign partnered with LexisNexis to confirm identity of document signers with what they call “out of wallet” questions, or questions that someone would not be able to answer if they found your wallet laying in the street.<ref>{{Cite web |date= |title=DocuSign Partners |url=https://partners.docusign.com/s/partner-profile/aNQ1W0000004CEFWA2/lexisnexis-risk-solutions |url-status=live |access-date=2025-05-09}}</ref>

On March 13, 2024 a class action lawsuit was filed in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida alleging the defendants ([[General Motors]], [[OnStar|OnStar LLC]], and LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.) violated The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681), The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FLA. STAT. § 501.201), and Florida Common-law Invasion of Privacy. Court documents allege OnStar was selling vehicle telematics data, collected through the Smart Driver program, to LexisNexis which was in turn sold to insurance providers leading to the plaintiff to be rejected on multiple car insurance applications and then having insurance rates doubled based on the information provided by LexisNexis.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-03-13 |title=Class Action Claims General Motors, OnStar Shared Driving Behavior Data Without Consent |url=https://www.classaction.org/media/chicco-v-general-motors-llc-et-al.pdf |access-date=2025-05-09}}</ref> According to a NY Times article, GM has stopped selling vehicle telematics data with LexisNexis and Verisk after the lawsuit was filed. A GM document referenced but not released by the NY Times allegedly showed that as of 2022 more than 8 million vehicles were enrolled in the program, and a company employee told the NY Times the revenue from the Smart Driver program was in the low millions of dollars.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hill |first=Kashmir |date=2024-03-22 |title=General Motors Quits Sharing Driving Behavior With Data Brokers |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/technology/gm-onstar-driver-data.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250426081230/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/technology/gm-onstar-driver-data.html |archive-date=2025-04-26 |work=The New York Times}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[LiveRamp]]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Common terms]]

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

2025-08-12T15:39:15Z

PixelRunner: Added a few sources, cited the act itself. This page is still lacking a lot of citation, but I just decided to get the ball rolling

{{StubNotice}}

The '''[[wikipedia:Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act|Digital Millenium Copyright Act]]''' (DMCA) is a copyright law passed in 1998 to amend Title 17 of the United States Code.<ref>[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf Digital Millennium Copyright Act]. [https://www.govinfo.gov/ ''GovInfo'']. Retrieved 12 Aug, 2025</ref><ref>[https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2281 Summary for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act]. [https://www.congress.gov/ ''Congress.gov'']. Retrieved 12 Aug, 2025</ref> Among its provisions are the criminalization of production and dissemination of information intended to circumvent copy protections that protect intellectual property, such as those considered digital rights management. It was later amended in 1998 to shield from liability ISPs that consumers may use to gain access to such information.

The law also provides that the Library of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition when it is shown that access-control technology has had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of people to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works. These exemptions are not granted in perpetuity. They are revised every 3 years all at once and existing exemptions must be resubmitted for the next rulemaking cycle alongside any new ones.

This law is one of the earliest to address the era of digital multimedia where previous law was deemed insufficient with the technology of the time period (even though its affect covers all digital information). Although the law is meant to supplement intellectual property rights, there are concerns that it comes into conflict with consumers' interests. This includes due to the specific text of the law, as well as its interpretation being used to attack activity by consumers that would otherwise be permitted. Concerns over Right to Repair, Fair Use, and an overall lack of useful paths to refute or redress accusations of violating the law remain.

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Legislation]]
[[Category:US legislation]]