> People don’t want to lose their data, but having personal control over your data is a great way to lose it, or even to lose control over it. I don't think "p

> People don’t want to lose their data, but having personal control over your data is a great way to lose it, or even to lose control over it. I don't think "personal control" implies that nobody else has full access to one's data. If that were true then NDAs would be useless. The idea of users "wanting control" simply means they want ubiquitous software to work like the best parts of ubiquitous social structures they've grown up with that aren't the internet. That is: facilitate personal growth and self-expression in a framework where individual failures and oversights don't accumulate to create a goddamned international environmental hazard. For example-- I'd bet there are a lot of Youtube posters who would love the following two features: 1. Painlessly upload videos that assert their opinionated world view at that moment in time. 2. Have people find it without plugging into a recommendation rabbit hole of contention that reframes their content as yet another rusty nail in a goddamned international environmental hazard. > But if, as technologists, we can’t map functionality to desire, it’s a bit of a stretch to imagine everyone else will figure it out on the fly. And one level above that-- if you don't have a legal framework where it's against the law to put cocaine in soft drinks then mapping functionality to desire will often be an unethical endeavor.