5 ms·

To put it bluntly.. I think this "just don't use it" meme needs to die. At this point in time, accessing certain websites is effectively a requirement of modern

by pwnna 8y ago

To put it bluntly.. I think this "just don't use it" meme needs to die. At this point in time, accessing certain websites is effectively a requirement of modern life: want to see your bills without paying for paper bills? want to apply for jobs? want to sign up for courses? submit your taxes? or even vote under some jurisdictions? Then you have to access a website. Sure, for a lot of these, there are alternatives. However, the costs will likely be much higher and you'll simply be left behind by everyone else in society. This effort by Google, at its worst possible implementation, could break a huge number of "required" websites for users. As others have pointed out in this thread, the users who will be impeded are likely already at a disadvantage[1]. This just reinforces that, especially if everyone starts adopting this given how it is "free" for businesses/organizations. A convenient side effect? Google gets more information about us and encourages us to view more ads. [1] Someone mentioned smaller villages in India. The GOV.UK reference talks about users with disability. One could also imagine shared locations like public library, whose users may not have direct access to the internet.

avip 8y ago
I tend to agree that public services (in the sense of .gov) should avoid using this. But they do need protective measures. Would logging in with a futuristic Aadhaar equivalent be considered less intrusive?
- pwnna 8y ago
  If the only websites that we essentially have to utilize as competent citizens are public ones then it would be easy. We regulate the public ones and we let the private ones do whatever they want. At that point I think a bunch of people on this site will probably be content quitting the internet heh :). The problem is that it's not that simple. As I said, for things like banks/job search, these are private entities and not public ones. Going down that line, we can find some private services that a majority of the population around you uses that you also have to use in order to keep up with everyone else because there are little alternatives (google maps comes to mind). Granted, the latter is a weaker example, but it's meant to explore how practical it is to completely ditch services that are anti-user. Also don't get me wrong.. I'll probably be one to turn off my blocker to access some service that will provide me value even if I'm already paying for it. However, it's just a terrible state to be in.

by pwnna 8y ago

avip 8y ago

I tend to agree that public services (in the sense of .gov) should avoid using this. But they do need protective measures. Would logging in with a futuristic Aadhaar equivalent be considered less intrusive?

pwnna 8y ago
If the only websites that we essentially have to utilize as competent citizens are public ones then it would be easy. We regulate the public ones and we let the private ones do whatever they want. At that point I think a bunch of people on this site will probably be content quitting the internet heh :). The problem is that it's not that simple. As I said, for things like banks/job search, these are private entities and not public ones. Going down that line, we can find some private services that a majority of the population around you uses that you also have to use in order to keep up with everyone else because there are little alternatives (google maps comes to mind). Granted, the latter is a weaker example, but it's meant to explore how practical it is to completely ditch services that are anti-user. Also don't get me wrong.. I'll probably be one to turn off my blocker to access some service that will provide me value even if I'm already paying for it. However, it's just a terrible state to be in.