4 ms·

So, explicitly giving third parties permission to read your messages means that said third parties might be able to read your messages? And this is a “Dirty Se

So, explicitly giving third parties permission to read your messages means that said third parties might be able to read your messages? And this is a “Dirty Secret”? I’m really struggling to see any generous way that this could be considered reporting and not just sensationalist junk.

trav4225 8y ago
It's 2018; "reporting" and "sensationalism" are synonyms. ;)
slededit 8y ago
When Google introduced the whole "ads based on your emails" they made a distinction between a human and an algorithm reading your emails. People were more OK with an algorithm because its not like the algorithm would make fun of you at lunch with their work buddies. Humans are also incapable of reading something and not passing judgement/making assumptions about the person who wrote it. An algorithm could theoretically be neutral. A lot of people are not prepared for the brave new world where "AI" is becoming judge jury and executioner.
mc32 8y ago
Unfortunately this is the state of news today. Be it tech, politics, even medicine, etc. It all has an invigorated agenda and slant. There is no more attempt at being reporting facts and then letting people decide what things are. Everything is "The Enquirer" in their reporting.
mark_l_watson 8y ago
PBS nightly news just had good coverage on this: the reporter was criticizing Google for not helping users make better choices, specifically many people might give a third party app the access rights for all a user’s gmail data. This makes sense to me. Google is careful to guide people through their own privacy settings, but leave the door open to third party developers. Google wants to build a platform around gmail, but I personally think this is against users’ best Interests. EDIT: link to PBS coverage I saw tonight https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ1uKwxpoDc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ1uKwxpoDc

trav4225 8y ago

It's 2018; "reporting" and "sensationalism" are synonyms. ;)

slededit 8y ago

When Google introduced the whole "ads based on your emails" they made a distinction between a human and an algorithm reading your emails. People were more OK with an algorithm because its not like the algorithm would make fun of you at lunch with their work buddies. Humans are also incapable of reading something and not passing judgement/making assumptions about the person who wrote it. An algorithm could theoretically be neutral. A lot of people are not prepared for the brave new world where "AI" is becoming judge jury and executioner.

mc32 8y ago

Unfortunately this is the state of news today. Be it tech, politics, even medicine, etc. It all has an invigorated agenda and slant. There is no more attempt at being reporting facts and then letting people decide what things are. Everything is "The Enquirer" in their reporting.

mark_l_watson 8y ago

PBS nightly news just had good coverage on this: the reporter was criticizing Google for not helping users make better choices, specifically many people might give a third party app the access rights for all a user’s gmail data. This makes sense to me. Google is careful to guide people through their own privacy settings, but leave the door open to third party developers. Google wants to build a platform around gmail, but I personally think this is against users’ best Interests. EDIT: link to PBS coverage I saw tonight https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ1uKwxpoDc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ1uKwxpoDc