3 ms·

“Nearly all tracking is by default and governed by impossible-to-read privacy policies. [...] For more detail please see our privacy policy.” Ironic.

• mosselman 7y ago
  How is this ironic? Having a privacy policy is not the same as having an 'impossible-to-read' one. Also, I doubt the journalists at the New York Times are responsible for what the company's tracking policy is. Are they suddenly not allowed to write about privacy issues? By this standard nobody would be allowed to talk about climate change, seeing as probably nobody has a 0% impact on climate change.
  • Xelbair 7y ago
    That's still ironical. if their claims are valid or not is absolutely unrelated to the irony of that situation though. Did anyone imply that if the content is 'ironical' we shouldn't write it or discuss it?
    • mosselman 7y ago
      It isn't ironic just because they also have a privacy policy. It has to be unreadable to come close to irony. Lets say that I own a burger restaurant and I tell you that burgers at McDonalds are crap. Would that be ironic? Because that is what you are saying. > Did anyone imply that if the content is 'ironical' we shouldn't write it or discuss it? I interpret the original comment: > Ironic. as a means to discrediting the journalist. You are right though and instead of "Are they suddenly not allowed to write about privacy issues?" I should have written something along the lines of "Is it suddenly not credible for them to write about privacy issues?"
  • grandmczeb 7y ago
    You’re reading quite a bit into a single word comment. Can we at least agree the juxtaposition of those two sentences is funny?