4 ms·

You speak as though an author on Slate.com has any actual say in what Slate.com does to set policy. It would be the same as if you read this article on any othe

by dpcx 8y ago

You speak as though an author on Slate.com has any actual say in what Slate.com does to set policy. It would be the same as if you read this article on any other "news site" - so why would you dismiss the author's concerns about privacy? Simply because they chose to use Slate.com as the outlet for their statement?

jfoster 8y ago
Author agreed to have their article published there.
malvosenior 8y ago
From the article: > If nothing else works, then at least I can vote with my feet—or my fingertips. If they were serious about privacy they could not write for Slate or at least comment on how the very site we're reading this on also has major privacy issues.
asdkhadsj 8y ago
> so why would you dismiss the author's concerns about privacy? Simply because they chose to use Slate.com as the outlet for their statement? In fairness, that sounds fairly reasonable. I don't know much about Slate (and the advertising consent makes me hesitant to click it), but if I'm an author wanting to write about privacy concerns, and I have Google publish me (be it by Blogger or some other medium), wouldn't my article feel a bit.. odd? I'd be asking you to set aside your privacy concerns so you can read my post about why you should be concerned about privacy. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, I'm not even clicking the article based on the silly terms. Yet, these comments make me feel it's similar in concept. Why should we step aside our privacy so we can discuss privacy? The content is on a less than stellar medium for privacy discussions, at the very least.
janpot 8y ago
Just like he has alternatives available for Google products that respect his privacy more. He has alternatives available for slate that respect my privacy more. He simply chooses to dismiss my concerns about privacy by picking slate. Why can't I dismiss his concerns about privacy then?
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > He simply chooses to dismiss _my_ concerns about privacy by picking slate. Why can't I dismiss _his_ concerns about privacy then? I don’t see how that follows. Even if the author were positively malicious, why would you ignore their concerns about privacy, which affect you and everyone else? It’s a non-sequitur.
  - janpot 8y ago
    I'm not saying his concerns are invalid just because he posts them on slate. I'm not saying his concerns are invalid at all. I would be able to criticize the validity of his concerns if I were able to read them. I have no choice but to ignore them because I'm not prepared to pay the price of my personal data. And I find that quite ironic, since apparently they are about protecting online privacy in the first place.
Flenser 8y ago
In an article where the author is writing about how their privacy is being infringed and they have chosen to switch away from that infringing service I'd say it would be fair to ask the author why they're publishing on a platform that doesn't respect their readers privacy.

by dpcx 8y ago

jfoster 8y ago

Author agreed to have their article published there.

malvosenior 8y ago

From the article: > If nothing else works, then at least I can vote with my feet—or my fingertips. If they were serious about privacy they could not write for Slate or at least comment on how the very site we're reading this on also has major privacy issues.

asdkhadsj 8y ago

> so why would you dismiss the author's concerns about privacy? Simply because they chose to use Slate.com as the outlet for their statement? In fairness, that sounds fairly reasonable. I don't know much about Slate (and the advertising consent makes me hesitant to click it), but if I'm an author wanting to write about privacy concerns, and I have Google publish me (be it by Blogger or some other medium), wouldn't my article feel a bit.. odd? I'd be asking you to set aside your privacy concerns so you can read my post about why you should be concerned about privacy. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, I'm not even clicking the article based on the silly terms. Yet, these comments make me feel it's similar in concept. Why should we step aside our privacy so we can discuss privacy? The content is on a less than stellar medium for privacy discussions, at the very least.

janpot 8y ago

Just like he has alternatives available for Google products that respect his privacy more. He has alternatives available for slate that respect my privacy more. He simply chooses to dismiss my concerns about privacy by picking slate. Why can't I dismiss his concerns about privacy then?

antidesitter 8y ago
> He simply chooses to dismiss _my_ concerns about privacy by picking slate. Why can't I dismiss _his_ concerns about privacy then? I don’t see how that follows. Even if the author were positively malicious, why would you ignore their concerns about privacy, which affect you and everyone else? It’s a non-sequitur.
- janpot 8y ago
  I'm not saying his concerns are invalid just because he posts them on slate. I'm not saying his concerns are invalid at all. I would be able to criticize the validity of his concerns if I were able to read them. I have no choice but to ignore them because I'm not prepared to pay the price of my personal data. And I find that quite ironic, since apparently they are about protecting online privacy in the first place.

Flenser 8y ago

In an article where the author is writing about how their privacy is being infringed and they have chosen to switch away from that infringing service I'd say it would be fair to ask the author why they're publishing on a platform that doesn't respect their readers privacy.