4 ms·

... yet we're fine running Google Analytics on our own site, of course. Please like and share this article using the f button on the left. (Of course it's bett

by hjek 7y ago

... yet we're fine running Google Analytics on our own site, of course. Please like and share this article using the f button on the left. (Of course it's better being a hypocrite than being completely indifferent but there's no excuse for not fixing their own site.)

ForHackernews 7y ago
Someone makes some version of this comment on every article about Facegoog surveillance. I guess you're only allowed to complain about surveillance on your personal blog where no one will read it, because any modern media site uses invasive tracking. For some reason, HN posters pretend not to understand that the IT staff who install those trackers are different people from the writers who complain about it.
- d1zzy 7y ago
  There may be valid reasons for installing the trackers, reasons that the writers are ignorant about. If suddenly you remove those 2 companies from the Internet, who's to say the tracking won't continue with other companies. Maybe get both the people installing the trackers and the people arguing against them in the same room and have them learn a bit from each other.
- hjek 7y ago
  > Someone makes some version of this comment on every article about Facegoog surveillance. Yup, that was in the back of my mind when I wrote that. I think it's great that they're complaining on the Amnesty blog. Let's be clear: The issue is not the complaining; it's the tracking. It's not that they shouldn't post this important post on their site; it's that they should consider not using Google Analytics. As I wrote before as well, being a hypocrite is a step up from not caring. It's good to see Amnesty taking a public stance on this. But I think you touch on an interesting general phenomena there: That someone, who professes a view, risks being attacked as a hypocrite, which could make it easier to stay silent instead.
tobr 7y ago
You might prefer just reading the report, which is a PDF - which doesn’t necessarily mean there‘s no tracking, but probably less. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/POL3014042019ENGLISH.PDF https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/POL3014042019ENGL...
dredmorbius 7y ago
I'd rather think it proves the point. Even an organisation as focused on human rights as Amnesty finds it has few tractable options but to use the very tools its criticising. That tends to undercut the "but you have a choice" / "there is a choice" counterarguments. Those choices come with high costs. It also highlights the fact that an alleged defence of monopolistic practices -- low costs to "consumers" -- is in fact a principle mechanism of monopoly persistence. By being the lowest-cost provider, the simplest or most convenient choice, what everyone knows, all of which are characteristics conveyed by monopoly rather than intrinsic to the technology or product itself, the monopoly position is highly stable and difficult to disrupt. Just as a river will flow through the lowest, widest channel, without regard to what damage might result from its path, a monopoly position is the path of least resistance. This does not mean it's the path of no or least damage. Let alone greatest benefit.
- hjek 7y ago
  > I'd rather think it proves the point. I like that way of looking at it. To be fair, the people within Amnesty who wrote this warning probably aren't the same who added Google Analytics to their site.

by hjek 7y ago

ForHackernews 7y ago

Someone makes some version of this comment on every article about Facegoog surveillance. I guess you're only allowed to complain about surveillance on your personal blog where no one will read it, because any modern media site uses invasive tracking. For some reason, HN posters pretend not to understand that the IT staff who install those trackers are different people from the writers who complain about it.

d1zzy 7y ago
There may be valid reasons for installing the trackers, reasons that the writers are ignorant about. If suddenly you remove those 2 companies from the Internet, who's to say the tracking won't continue with other companies. Maybe get both the people installing the trackers and the people arguing against them in the same room and have them learn a bit from each other.
hjek 7y ago
> Someone makes some version of this comment on every article about Facegoog surveillance. Yup, that was in the back of my mind when I wrote that. I think it's great that they're complaining on the Amnesty blog. Let's be clear: The issue is not the complaining; it's the tracking. It's not that they shouldn't post this important post on their site; it's that they should consider not using Google Analytics. As I wrote before as well, being a hypocrite is a step up from not caring. It's good to see Amnesty taking a public stance on this. But I think you touch on an interesting general phenomena there: That someone, who professes a view, risks being attacked as a hypocrite, which could make it easier to stay silent instead.

tobr 7y ago

You might prefer just reading the report, which is a PDF - which doesn’t necessarily mean there‘s no tracking, but probably less. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/POL3014042019ENGLISH.PDF https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/POL3014042019ENGL...

dredmorbius 7y ago

I'd rather think it proves the point. Even an organisation as focused on human rights as Amnesty finds it has few tractable options but to use the very tools its criticising. That tends to undercut the "but you have a choice" / "there is a choice" counterarguments. Those choices come with high costs. It also highlights the fact that an alleged defence of monopolistic practices -- low costs to "consumers" -- is in fact a principle mechanism of monopoly persistence. By being the lowest-cost provider, the simplest or most convenient choice, what everyone knows, all of which are characteristics conveyed by monopoly rather than intrinsic to the technology or product itself, the monopoly position is highly stable and difficult to disrupt. Just as a river will flow through the lowest, widest channel, without regard to what damage might result from its path, a monopoly position is the path of least resistance. This does not mean it's the path of no or least damage. Let alone greatest benefit.

hjek 7y ago
> I'd rather think it proves the point. I like that way of looking at it. To be fair, the people within Amnesty who wrote this warning probably aren't the same who added Google Analytics to their site.