>You reference those things as if they are a "bad thing"
More accurately, as if they are not obviously noble, since you conflated everyone to have been called SJW with someone brave and insightful. But yeah I do think those things are intrinsically wrong.
Don't confuse people "who dared ask, "why are we doing this?"" with people who want reparations, affirmative action, etc. And that's just a second definition I've thrown out there, alongside yours, when there's many more.
Well, online recreation is as real as online discussion. There's people on the other end etc. On the other hand, if a kid spoils a game in a real-world playground, we don't give criminal records for that. On the other other hand, a game company is being harmed when you spoil their games.
>The social network had even kept a permanent record of the roughly 100 people I had deleted from my friends list over the last 14 years, including my exes.
How useful is the info one can even get from this?
I mean even if you interpret unfriending as enemying (which is a leap), possibly revealing interests you don't have, associations you don't have.... it's a lot weaker (to advertisers) than positive information.
It's all about whether you've played the game. I can watch the movie knowing/accepting what the plot is (there's a tournament, people have to fight - just sit back and watch shit go down) and the characters (there's going to be a humanoid reptile etc).
I feel for you, out of curiosity did you create your profiles and sites purely to displace the bad results or did you also try to engineer your content to refute them?
In the former example you have so much power that whatever cause you had to denigrate them no longer matters to you, but that is neither the common case nor principled.
More accurately, as if they are not obviously noble, since you conflated everyone to have been called SJW with someone brave and insightful. But yeah I do think those things are intrinsically wrong.