6 ms·

I think what angered people was actually that a company saying to hold privacy high was simply refusing to change something after a mistake was pointed out and

I think what angered people was actually that a company saying to hold privacy high was simply refusing to change something after a mistake was pointed out and instead kept on defending it with a technical argument, which makes no sense at all. The reaction would have been actually a lot different if someone from the company admitted the mistake and promised it will be changed. Update: Gabriel Weinberg has promised to change it, linking it here so it does not get buried in the pile of comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23711597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23711597

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
asjw 6y ago
Yeah people burnt witches in the past ... If they are confident that this feature has no privacy implications they are right to defend the point, despite what people say or think People don't run DDG, the company People can use another search engine if they want I'll keep using DDG anyway
- marcinzm 6y ago
  DDG can do what they want and people can as a result publicly state their opinions on it. Freedom goes both ways.
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    You’ve described the race to the bottom we live in. Can we please try and break the cycle?
  - esoterae 6y ago
    Those witches have a right to be on fire. Where's my pitchfork?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
koheripbal 6y ago
Read your comment again. You are faulting someone for defending thier own argument. You suggest that people who do not cow and apologize to the mob deserve the anger and retribution the mob has to offer. People have a right to think differently and express themselves without threats, bullying, or shaming. The mob does not deserve apologies. The comment above is spot on - we've lost all sense of proportionality. It is an indication of the modern online mob sickness that they always demand others beg for forgiveness. What emotional void are mob participants trying to fill with the apologies of others?
- 411111111111111 6y ago
  i cant fully agree. you obviously should be allowed to make a mistake and be forgiven for it. that does not mean that i personally would ever forgive any `company` that markets itself as pro-privacy after its been caught gathering data on its users. i could forgive the people working at the company and would definitely expect future employers not to hold that against them, however. but if a `company` does something while claiming to stand morally opposed to exactly that.... proves that it doesn't actually care about the topic. it just wants the publicity for marketability, discrediting them entirely for all future communication. in this particular case, i wouldn't go that far however. they weren't gathering any data on their users if i understood it correctly. it was just a badly implemented feature, which will get changed
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    You seem to put great value on forgiveness. What is your forgiveness worth? What emotional chasm do you struggle with that you demand others to beg for your forgiveness? Why on Earth should anyone care if you forgive them. This is your emotional hangup - not a problem with DuckDuckGo.
    - 411111111111111 6y ago
      Not particularly. I was specifically responding about your outrage how internet 'mobs' demand forgiveness from the people they've supposedly wronged. The whole comment was just me talking from the perspective of a possible self identified victim and how that person (me) would respond in such a case. Forgiveness would've to happen for me to trust that party again, which would be a requirement for me becoming a user/paying for the service again. If that possible other party doesn't care about wherever the people they've supposedly wronged use/pay for their services, then there is obviously no need for any interaction after that point. And as I said before: none of this applied to ddg, as they didn't spy on their user. They implemented a leaky feature, which they've committed to changing.
SmokeyHamster 6y ago
>defending it with a technical argument, which makes no sense at all. Well hold on now. If there's a valid technical argument, and it's not a violation of privacy, why doesn't that make sense? If people are so distrustful of DDG that they don't believe that argument, why use their browser under any circumstance?
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  A performance optimization around a trivial thing like a favicon is no reason to destroy everyone's security. Let's assume DDG is a great and honest company and will collect all the info, but never use it for anything bad. Guess what, they can get still hacked and all the info leaks out. This is a horrendous breach of trust that they WERE collecting it however, and I'm glad they got caught. It will not be tolerated. They'll have to change this or face a revolt.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

asjw 6y ago

Yeah people burnt witches in the past ... If they are confident that this feature has no privacy implications they are right to defend the point, despite what people say or think People don't run DDG, the company People can use another search engine if they want I'll keep using DDG anyway

marcinzm 6y ago
DDG can do what they want and people can as a result publicly state their opinions on it. Freedom goes both ways.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  You’ve described the race to the bottom we live in. Can we please try and break the cycle?
- esoterae 6y ago
  Those witches have a right to be on fire. Where's my pitchfork?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

koheripbal 6y ago

Read your comment again. You are faulting someone for defending thier own argument. You suggest that people who do not cow and apologize to the mob deserve the anger and retribution the mob has to offer. People have a right to think differently and express themselves without threats, bullying, or shaming. The mob does not deserve apologies. The comment above is spot on - we've lost all sense of proportionality. It is an indication of the modern online mob sickness that they always demand others beg for forgiveness. What emotional void are mob participants trying to fill with the apologies of others?

411111111111111 6y ago
i cant fully agree. you obviously should be allowed to make a mistake and be forgiven for it. that does not mean that i personally would ever forgive any `company` that markets itself as pro-privacy after its been caught gathering data on its users. i could forgive the people working at the company and would definitely expect future employers not to hold that against them, however. but if a `company` does something while claiming to stand morally opposed to exactly that.... proves that it doesn't actually care about the topic. it just wants the publicity for marketability, discrediting them entirely for all future communication. in this particular case, i wouldn't go that far however. they weren't gathering any data on their users if i understood it correctly. it was just a badly implemented feature, which will get changed
- koheripbal 6y ago
  You seem to put great value on forgiveness. What is your forgiveness worth? What emotional chasm do you struggle with that you demand others to beg for your forgiveness? Why on Earth should anyone care if you forgive them. This is your emotional hangup - not a problem with DuckDuckGo.
  - 411111111111111 6y ago
    Not particularly. I was specifically responding about your outrage how internet 'mobs' demand forgiveness from the people they've supposedly wronged. The whole comment was just me talking from the perspective of a possible self identified victim and how that person (me) would respond in such a case. Forgiveness would've to happen for me to trust that party again, which would be a requirement for me becoming a user/paying for the service again. If that possible other party doesn't care about wherever the people they've supposedly wronged use/pay for their services, then there is obviously no need for any interaction after that point. And as I said before: none of this applied to ddg, as they didn't spy on their user. They implemented a leaky feature, which they've committed to changing.

SmokeyHamster 6y ago

>defending it with a technical argument, which makes no sense at all. Well hold on now. If there's a valid technical argument, and it's not a violation of privacy, why doesn't that make sense? If people are so distrustful of DDG that they don't believe that argument, why use their browser under any circumstance?

WClayFerguson 6y ago
A performance optimization around a trivial thing like a favicon is no reason to destroy everyone's security. Let's assume DDG is a great and honest company and will collect all the info, but never use it for anything bad. Guess what, they can get still hacked and all the info leaks out. This is a horrendous breach of trust that they WERE collecting it however, and I'm glad they got caught. It will not be tolerated. They'll have to change this or face a revolt.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]