3 ms·

It's experimenting on software, not experimenting on people. "People" aren't the part of the equation that anyone cares about in this scenario. And I do not th

It's experimenting on software, not experimenting on people. "People" aren't the part of the equation that anyone cares about in this scenario. And I do not think you're even sort of having this argument in good faith. You can't possibly be a rational person and believe that changing UI colors is "deeply problematic experimentation on people". Forgive me if I'm a little pissed off but this privacy extremism shit is exactly what leads to people looking down at anyone who is a privacy advocate as a nutjob. So, thanks a lot for that, more work for those of us out there who want, to, I dunno, protect citizens from being genuinely fucking spied on and their data passed around like candy so better ads can be served. But hey, it's all good, you're keeping those pesky UI designers from knowing which of their redesign is better, so at least we got that going for us.

musicale 5y ago
It seems a bit dismissive to wave off pp's discomfort with becoming an unwitting UI test subject. I also would not agree with any argument like "opt-in is necessary to reign in anti-privacy activities of bad companies like Facebook, but we're good UI designers at Mozilla so we don't need to use opt-in and can use opt-out with impunity." A browser that collects and reports any information on its users without their explicit permission is simply not putting privacy first. Any privacy-focused browser should make UI testing - or any other telemetry or analytics - opt-in and should generally clearly disclose any information being collected (and preferably make it available for inspection) and also describe all parties that will have access to the information as well as what it will be used for.
marginalia_nu 5y ago
The fundamental problem is your view of human beings as tools to be used to further your goals. Other people aren't tools for you to use. They are your peers. If you view them as instruments, you're a villain. It doesn't matter if your intentions are good. Everyone has good intentions. Every atrocity in human history has been made with good intentions. It doesn't matter if you don't think it will do them any harm. That's not for you to decide.

musicale 5y ago

It seems a bit dismissive to wave off pp's discomfort with becoming an unwitting UI test subject. I also would not agree with any argument like "opt-in is necessary to reign in anti-privacy activities of bad companies like Facebook, but we're good UI designers at Mozilla so we don't need to use opt-in and can use opt-out with impunity." A browser that collects and reports any information on its users without their explicit permission is simply not putting privacy first. Any privacy-focused browser should make UI testing - or any other telemetry or analytics - opt-in and should generally clearly disclose any information being collected (and preferably make it available for inspection) and also describe all parties that will have access to the information as well as what it will be used for.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

The fundamental problem is your view of human beings as tools to be used to further your goals. Other people aren't tools for you to use. They are your peers. If you view them as instruments, you're a villain. It doesn't matter if your intentions are good. Everyone has good intentions. Every atrocity in human history has been made with good intentions. It doesn't matter if you don't think it will do them any harm. That's not for you to decide.