3 ms·
It’s hard to make people care with “bad/user hostile/privacy invading” because those terms have saturated descriptions of behavior that users are okay with. Exa
by compscistd 5y ago
It’s hard to make people care with “bad/user hostile/privacy invading” because those terms have saturated descriptions of behavior that users are okay with. Example: tons of articles mention FB as a privacy invading or user hostile service but it continues to be used by people who don’t really care. Using the same terminology for something that is arguably worse with much higher stakes (algorithmic proctoring that “reinforces white supremacy, sexism, ableism, and transphobia”) is appropriate because it gets the reader to care by illustrating exactly what is possible with algo proctoring.
I sense you’re tired of discussions that mention the “cards in the deck”, likely because you aren’t affected by them and therefore care little for them. That’s honestly fair, but there’s value in writing that way to channel outrage into action.
- NikolaeVarius 5y agoSo you're completely okay with saying anything that has dubious truth value as long as it supports whatever cause you happen to promote. Great. Good to know where the zeitgeist is.
- kilnr 5y agoBut extrapolating from one HN commenter onto the entire zeitgeist is acceptable to you?
- NikolaeVarius 5y agoDirect question. Do you agree with the aforementioned commenter and why or why not.