3 ms·
Not trying to snark, but this seems like pretty basic stuff - is there anything in the article that the average HN reader wouldn't have heard multiple times alr
by cookie_monsta 7y ago
Not trying to snark, but this seems like pretty basic stuff - is there anything in the article that the average HN reader wouldn't have heard multiple times already?
- forgotmypw3 7y agoContent to advertising ratio very low with this article, I think people just voted it up for the feel-good value.
- cookie_monsta 7y agoI guess that makes sense.
- xxxtentachyon 7y agoNope, but this article isn't aimed at HN readers. It's aimed at lay people who don't necessarily understand what actions they're taking to implicitly undermine their own privacy or jeopardize the future of an open, standards-driven web. Katherine has written other, more innovative pieces around the same issues: https://www.fastcompany.com/90369697/googles-new-recaptcha-has-a-dark-side https://www.fastcompany.com/90369697/googles-new-recaptcha-h...
- cookie_monsta 7y ago> Nope, but this article isn't aimed at HN readers. It's aimed at lay people who don't necessarily understand what actions they're taking... So why is it here?
- naniwaduni 7y agoAn article can be of interest to HN readers without being aimed at them.
- cookie_monsta 7y agoNo doubt. But the reason why this one isn't aimed at HN readers is because they've heard all of this multiple times already. I'm not disagreeing with the article, I'm just wondering why it is of interest.
- dammitfoo 7y agoNot much. But the article can be shared with your non-technical friends and family members though. I guess that's why it has a lot of upvotes.