4 ms·

Strawman. >>it not up to you to decide everyone else's fate I'm not asking anyone to live to my values. Many others share them. I think the point that users

Strawman. >>it not up to you to decide everyone else's fate I'm not asking anyone to live to my values. Many others share them. I think the point that users should not exceed customers is easy to understand. Many people agree with me. Many others dont. I have turned down an offer at Google because I couldn't reconcile the bad stuff. I wish more people agreed with me, but I don't say that those who don't are illogical. They simply have different values. That is OK if you value diversity.

manigandham 10y ago
> User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts. This is what you wrote. Why make this proclamation? Why should free users be limited regardless of whether they derive value from the service and are ok with being "the product"? The ethics of a company and the value they provide to a user are all subjective and thus you cannot state that the company is unethical or the users are being exploited as a rule. This is why your statement does not make sense. > Strawman ... I have turned down an offer at Google because I couldn't reconcile the bad stuff. I wish more people agreed with me, but I don't say that those who don't are illogical. They simply have different values. That is OK if you value diversity. This is actually a good example of a strawman argument - and completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not calling you illogical and I don't see how diversity has anything to do with this. You've made a statement and I explained why it doesn't make sense (see above). You're still free to say it and I'm still glad you did as it led to this discussion. Please focus on the arguments instead of being so defensive and using these passive accusations.
- droopybuns 10y ago
  >>The ethics of a company and the value they provide to a user are all subjective and thus you cannot state that the company is unethical or the users are being exploited as a rule. This seems to me to be the crux of our disagreement. You believe ethics are so subjective that ethical stances should not be expressed. I reject that whole heartedly. Businesses with user counts that dwarf customer counts generally are exploitative and bad for the consumer. They are incented to harvest information that results in privacy violations.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    > ethical stances should not be expressed Who is stopping you from saying anything? You expressed it and I said I'm glad you did. Again, please stop being so defensive for no reason, it's not conducive to any discussion. > Businesses with user counts that dwarf customer counts generally are exploitative and bad for the consumer. They are incented to harvest information that results in privacy violations. Not really, again you say "exploitative and bad" but this is according to you. It's up to the actual consumer to consider this for themselves, which is why there's no valid way to make a statement as how to how this generally works or that users should always be fewer than customers. You can look at open-source companies that produce software used by thousands but sponsored by a few customers as just 1 of many counter examples.

manigandham 10y ago

> User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts. This is what you wrote. Why make this proclamation? Why should free users be limited regardless of whether they derive value from the service and are ok with being "the product"? The ethics of a company and the value they provide to a user are all subjective and thus you cannot state that the company is unethical or the users are being exploited as a rule. This is why your statement does not make sense. > Strawman ... I have turned down an offer at Google because I couldn't reconcile the bad stuff. I wish more people agreed with me, but I don't say that those who don't are illogical. They simply have different values. That is OK if you value diversity. This is actually a good example of a strawman argument - and completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not calling you illogical and I don't see how diversity has anything to do with this. You've made a statement and I explained why it doesn't make sense (see above). You're still free to say it and I'm still glad you did as it led to this discussion. Please focus on the arguments instead of being so defensive and using these passive accusations.

droopybuns 10y ago
>>The ethics of a company and the value they provide to a user are all subjective and thus you cannot state that the company is unethical or the users are being exploited as a rule. This seems to me to be the crux of our disagreement. You believe ethics are so subjective that ethical stances should not be expressed. I reject that whole heartedly. Businesses with user counts that dwarf customer counts generally are exploitative and bad for the consumer. They are incented to harvest information that results in privacy violations.
- manigandham 10y ago
  > ethical stances should not be expressed Who is stopping you from saying anything? You expressed it and I said I'm glad you did. Again, please stop being so defensive for no reason, it's not conducive to any discussion. > Businesses with user counts that dwarf customer counts generally are exploitative and bad for the consumer. They are incented to harvest information that results in privacy violations. Not really, again you say "exploitative and bad" but this is according to you. It's up to the actual consumer to consider this for themselves, which is why there's no valid way to make a statement as how to how this generally works or that users should always be fewer than customers. You can look at open-source companies that produce software used by thousands but sponsored by a few customers as just 1 of many counter examples.