4 ms·

The irony here is that this article has at least 20 trackers. PS: Firefox Quantum is great

odensc 7y ago
Is it really ironic though? This article isn't published by DuckDuckGo - it's published by Vox, which doesn't necessarily agree with their viewpoint.
- wybiral 7y ago
  I didn't say it was hypocritical. Just ironic.
  - odensc 7y ago
    What definition of irony would this fit? Honestly asking.
    - wybiral 7y ago
      The Alanis Morissette definition.
    - gtirloni 7y ago
      I sincerely don't think it fits but I'm no expert in philosophy. Maybe it's just an interesting (sad) fact that an article about data privacy is full of trackers? I think we all got what you were trying to say and we're just being pedantic, sorry.
  - gtirloni 7y ago
    It's neither ironic nor hypocritical that the Vox website reporting on DDG's view about data privacy has 20 trackers. Nice overview with examples (if somewhat lengthy): https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-irony-and-hypocrisy https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-irony-a...
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > Nice overview with examples And trackers.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  Because Vox is using the concept of losing your privacy to ad trackers and companies to generate clicks, whilst providing those companies with valuable user data and impressions.
dictum 7y ago
There are at least two possible arguments behind this question. One (which, to be clear, is not how I interpret your comment) is the tired gotcha "if you hate society, why do you partake in it?", which is simply not substantial enough to answer. The other argument I've seen is actually worth some thought, though I'm not ready to give a definitive answer in either this case or as a general principle: Entities that play a certain game effectively endorse that game by playing it. The devil lies in the corollary to that observation: whatever prizes are awarded by that game will only go to entities that are willing to play that game.
- wybiral 7y ago
  > There are at least two possible arguments behind this question. What was the question?
  - dictum 7y ago
    "Question" as used here is closer to "matter" or "problem" than to asking. I just can't find the right word to describe a point raised about a paradoxical relationship. When I read it, I find an implicit question, though I cannot put to words the exact inquiry. Maybe "Why?" In a way, all replies on a public forum are implicit questions. (This is where I get even more hand-wavy, sorry)
- swebs 7y ago
  Pointing out hypocrisy is now brushed off as a "tired gotcha". What a world we live in.
  - dictum 7y ago
    Pointing out hypocrisy by itself is not a virtuous action; it is a neutral vehicle for a deeper analysis of traditions, opinions, mores and values. This resulting analysis can then be virtuous or not. In some debates, it is used as a quick way to endorse the status quo without having to analyse it further. A way to "win" a debate that shouldn't be won by either party. Instead of debating the current practices or the proposed alternative approach on their own merits and circumstances, you first require that one of the participants (the one proposing a different approach) step down from the debate and only come back when the proposed approach is fully baked, working, and has all the optimizations of the current approach in place. It ignores the differences between the two participants — be it background, power, money, skills, context, future commitments.

Is it really ironic though? This article isn't published by DuckDuckGo - it's published by Vox, which doesn't necessarily agree with their viewpoint.

wybiral 7y ago
I didn't say it was hypocritical. Just ironic.
- odensc 7y ago
  What definition of irony would this fit? Honestly asking.
  - wybiral 7y ago
    The Alanis Morissette definition.
  - gtirloni 7y ago
    I sincerely don't think it fits but I'm no expert in philosophy. Maybe it's just an interesting (sad) fact that an article about data privacy is full of trackers? I think we all got what you were trying to say and we're just being pedantic, sorry.
- gtirloni 7y ago
  It's neither ironic nor hypocritical that the Vox website reporting on DDG's view about data privacy has 20 trackers. Nice overview with examples (if somewhat lengthy): https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-irony-and-hypocrisy https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-irony-a...
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > Nice overview with examples And trackers.
FussyZeus 7y ago
Because Vox is using the concept of losing your privacy to ad trackers and companies to generate clicks, whilst providing those companies with valuable user data and impressions.

dictum 7y ago

There are at least two possible arguments behind this question. One (which, to be clear, is not how I interpret your comment) is the tired gotcha "if you hate society, why do you partake in it?", which is simply not substantial enough to answer. The other argument I've seen is actually worth some thought, though I'm not ready to give a definitive answer in either this case or as a general principle: Entities that play a certain game effectively endorse that game by playing it. The devil lies in the corollary to that observation: whatever prizes are awarded by that game will only go to entities that are willing to play that game.

wybiral 7y ago
> There are at least two possible arguments behind this question. What was the question?
- dictum 7y ago
  "Question" as used here is closer to "matter" or "problem" than to asking. I just can't find the right word to describe a point raised about a paradoxical relationship. When I read it, I find an implicit question, though I cannot put to words the exact inquiry. Maybe "Why?" In a way, all replies on a public forum are implicit questions. (This is where I get even more hand-wavy, sorry)
swebs 7y ago
Pointing out hypocrisy is now brushed off as a "tired gotcha". What a world we live in.
- dictum 7y ago
  Pointing out hypocrisy by itself is not a virtuous action; it is a neutral vehicle for a deeper analysis of traditions, opinions, mores and values. This resulting analysis can then be virtuous or not. In some debates, it is used as a quick way to endorse the status quo without having to analyse it further. A way to "win" a debate that shouldn't be won by either party. Instead of debating the current practices or the proposed alternative approach on their own merits and circumstances, you first require that one of the participants (the one proposing a different approach) step down from the debate and only come back when the proposed approach is fully baked, working, and has all the optimizations of the current approach in place. It ignores the differences between the two participants — be it background, power, money, skills, context, future commitments.