6 ms·

It's interesting how the media cartel front thinks it's safe to drop all pretense and just post their opposition research like that. http://digitalcontentnext.

It's interesting how the media cartel front thinks it's safe to drop all pretense and just post their opposition research like that. http://digitalcontentnext.org/membership/members http://digitalcontentnext.org/membership/members http://digitalcontentnext.org/about/overview/ http://digitalcontentnext.org/about/overview/ At the very least it reflects poorly on their member's coverage of FB/google.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I don't think it should matter who simple falsifiable statements of facts come from. 'Adversarial forces' would be the ones most motivated to discover these bits of information, and they're incredibly valuable. I mean this is an experiment anybody with a couple of phones and a dash of technical ability could carry out themselves. I would contrast this against the sort of macro-level research that involves modeling and other more subjective components subject to extensive 'tuning.' For instance the 'Uber drivers earn $3/hour' piece that ran a while back. The extensive modeling and obscured assumptions make it much easier to create fake conclusions that are very difficult to falsify.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
zepto 8y ago
Who cares? What matters is whether it is true or not. Are you just trying to smear the information with an ad hominem, or do you have reason to believe it is inaccurate?
- econ4all 8y ago
  It matters because the manner in which any "findings" are presented has a big role in shaping public opinion and in this case the opinion shapers are purpofuly distorting finding to attack an advesary. See the WSJ's false report that google let's developers read user emails, it's technically true but that only happens after the user allows it via an explicit permission screen. Or the AP's claim that google keeps track of user location ever after location history is turned off, which again is technically true but that is because location history is just a location feature and not the master switch for all location features. In both cases other media outlets repeated the claims without further commentery of research and this cartel might be the reason.
  - digitaLandscape 8y ago
    Wasn't the entire point of this location privacy redesign Google did a few years ago that they wanted to have a single master switch, for internal and consumer clarity? Because that's the line they sold us inside the company when we complained that it was now asking for broad permissions too often. "It's broad, but it's all controlled in one place now." If they're now claiming that users are confused and that's not what it means, well, fuck Google management. They don't give a damn. They'll lie to their employees, and they'll lie to their users.
    - econ4all 8y ago
      Swipe down from the top of the screen and tap the location tile and all location services will turn off. There's a master switch it's just not what the AP decided it was.
      - convivialdingo 8y ago
        Even that seems to get periodically re-enabled on my Galaxy S7 without my permission. I reasonably expect that if I launch an app that requires location to get asked for it, but in my experience the system level software is collecting it anyway, perhaps traffic mapping?
        mooman219 8y ago
        Given Samsung, I wouldn't be surprised if that issue was related to their software. There's just so much going on in Android, and so much third party software, that you really can't assume much anymore.
      - sitkack 8y ago
        Do you work for Google?
        econ4all 8y ago
        I'm unemployed.
throw2016 8y ago
Most if not all research that are widely pitched to the media have some sort of agenda driving them. In this case we have invasive surveillance from Chrome and Android which is not a secret and cause of growing concern. As is deceptive communication about 'improving user experience' which is meaningless without specifics and is intentionally used to mislead, and downright fraud with 'location buttons' that do not turn off location. The fact that you didn't seek to engage these points and immediately sought to question motives betrays an agenda. Unfortunately these are unethical actions whoever does the research and this kind apologism seeks to derail discussion and distract from the creepy behavior of bad actors.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

I don't think it should matter who simple falsifiable statements of facts come from. 'Adversarial forces' would be the ones most motivated to discover these bits of information, and they're incredibly valuable. I mean this is an experiment anybody with a couple of phones and a dash of technical ability could carry out themselves. I would contrast this against the sort of macro-level research that involves modeling and other more subjective components subject to extensive 'tuning.' For instance the 'Uber drivers earn $3/hour' piece that ran a while back. The extensive modeling and obscured assumptions make it much easier to create fake conclusions that are very difficult to falsify.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

zepto 8y ago

Who cares? What matters is whether it is true or not. Are you just trying to smear the information with an ad hominem, or do you have reason to believe it is inaccurate?

econ4all 8y ago
It matters because the manner in which any "findings" are presented has a big role in shaping public opinion and in this case the opinion shapers are purpofuly distorting finding to attack an advesary. See the WSJ's false report that google let's developers read user emails, it's technically true but that only happens after the user allows it via an explicit permission screen. Or the AP's claim that google keeps track of user location ever after location history is turned off, which again is technically true but that is because location history is just a location feature and not the master switch for all location features. In both cases other media outlets repeated the claims without further commentery of research and this cartel might be the reason.
- digitaLandscape 8y ago
  Wasn't the entire point of this location privacy redesign Google did a few years ago that they wanted to have a single master switch, for internal and consumer clarity? Because that's the line they sold us inside the company when we complained that it was now asking for broad permissions too often. "It's broad, but it's all controlled in one place now." If they're now claiming that users are confused and that's not what it means, well, fuck Google management. They don't give a damn. They'll lie to their employees, and they'll lie to their users.
  - econ4all 8y ago
    Swipe down from the top of the screen and tap the location tile and all location services will turn off. There's a master switch it's just not what the AP decided it was.
    - convivialdingo 8y ago
      Even that seems to get periodically re-enabled on my Galaxy S7 without my permission. I reasonably expect that if I launch an app that requires location to get asked for it, but in my experience the system level software is collecting it anyway, perhaps traffic mapping?
      - mooman219 8y ago
        Given Samsung, I wouldn't be surprised if that issue was related to their software. There's just so much going on in Android, and so much third party software, that you really can't assume much anymore.
    - sitkack 8y ago
      Do you work for Google?
      - econ4all 8y ago
        I'm unemployed.

throw2016 8y ago

Most if not all research that are widely pitched to the media have some sort of agenda driving them. In this case we have invasive surveillance from Chrome and Android which is not a secret and cause of growing concern. As is deceptive communication about 'improving user experience' which is meaningless without specifics and is intentionally used to mislead, and downright fraud with 'location buttons' that do not turn off location. The fact that you didn't seek to engage these points and immediately sought to question motives betrays an agenda. Unfortunately these are unethical actions whoever does the research and this kind apologism seeks to derail discussion and distract from the creepy behavior of bad actors.