3 ms·

Where is the distinction between spying on a user using a piece of traditional software and a web site. At the end of the day, you are spying on users to better

Where is the distinction between spying on a user using a piece of traditional software and a web site. At the end of the day, you are spying on users to better yourself and sometimes at the cost of the user, who mostly is not aware of the manipulation that goes on. Sorry for the cynicism, but that is the reality.

dcbadacd 8y ago
First-party analytics is like blocking people in face masks entering a store, using security cameras or counting daily visitors. Your "cynicism" is more Luddide-ism. As with physical venues that employ analytics, you can easily just not visit those sites that want to know a bit more about how people consume content than seeing "GET /page.html" in HTTP logs. I'm writing this text to you as a huge free-software proponent so I'm not a "corporate shill" when I say analytics are really useful even to the most privacy-respecting pieces of software, it allows to spend resources much more effectively than making blind decisions about what users want - the vocal users opening GH issues about things are the 0.01% and those people shouldn't be the ones people building webpages, -services make decisions upon.
- laythea 8y ago
  When any normal person visits a store they can see the security cameras watching, and they can likely image that they may be counted. It is not accurate to say that it is like that the average person who goes to a web site is even in the slightest aware of all the different ways in which they are being used.
  - dcbadacd 8y ago
    Just like when entering a store visiting a webpage implies already that the thing your visiting does not belong to you, that the content there is not yours, the door might be counting visitors and to dissuade thieves from stealing there most likely are CCTV cameras. If you do not agree with that, don't enter the store or visit the web page, it's that simple. It is not accurate to say that someone else's ignorance is a reason alone not to do something that in the end will benefit both you and maybe other customers.

dcbadacd 8y ago

First-party analytics is like blocking people in face masks entering a store, using security cameras or counting daily visitors. Your "cynicism" is more Luddide-ism. As with physical venues that employ analytics, you can easily just not visit those sites that want to know a bit more about how people consume content than seeing "GET /page.html" in HTTP logs. I'm writing this text to you as a huge free-software proponent so I'm not a "corporate shill" when I say analytics are really useful even to the most privacy-respecting pieces of software, it allows to spend resources much more effectively than making blind decisions about what users want - the vocal users opening GH issues about things are the 0.01% and those people shouldn't be the ones people building webpages, -services make decisions upon.

laythea 8y ago
When any normal person visits a store they can see the security cameras watching, and they can likely image that they may be counted. It is not accurate to say that it is like that the average person who goes to a web site is even in the slightest aware of all the different ways in which they are being used.
- dcbadacd 8y ago
  Just like when entering a store visiting a webpage implies already that the thing your visiting does not belong to you, that the content there is not yours, the door might be counting visitors and to dissuade thieves from stealing there most likely are CCTV cameras. If you do not agree with that, don't enter the store or visit the web page, it's that simple. It is not accurate to say that someone else's ignorance is a reason alone not to do something that in the end will benefit both you and maybe other customers.