3 ms·

PR and damage control isn't effective if the employee in charge is like "oh shit dudes our company screwed up!" I think any google employee that comes in here

PR and damage control isn't effective if the employee in charge is like "oh shit dudes our company screwed up!" I think any google employee that comes in here and starts agreeing with the complaints would quickly find themselves out of a massively overpaid job the next day.

tomnipotent 5y ago
- friedturkey 5y ago
  Loads of valid issues mentioned around here describing concerns with users being tracked. Not really reactive when misuse and abuse of tracking data is so insanely common.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    - chaps 5y ago
      Can you please clarify what you mean and why you think this? Whether from a lack of experience with how these things can go badly, or from a lack of good faith in trying to understand others' concerns, it sounds like you simply don't understand why people would have issues with this. But you haven't clarified what your comments that, from my perspective, appear to be even more reactionary than the people you're accusing of being reactionary.
      - tomnipotent 5y ago
        Let's start with your earlier comments. > This is a bad feature that should not be turned on by default. Opine. Stating it matter-of-factly doesn't make it fact. > You're effectively enabling the ease of search warrants of journalists and activists' search history Here you pull the "think of the children!" card. All those poor journalists and activists using Workspaces. Your response is to bring up politically vulnerable outlier groups and parade them around to satisfy your own need to express moral outrage. > it sounds like you simply don't understand why people would have issues with this I don't understand why people want to be outraged for the sake of being outraged. It's becoming exhausting.
        chaps 5y ago
        I bring up that group because I'm a part of that group and work with people who have been targeted with subpoenas for simply investigating a company. This is something that effects me personally and the work I do that's deeply intended to help and inform the public. That you don't think protecting that group is a critically important thing for everyone is very telling. What's exhausting is having to keep up to date with how to continue turning off these awful "features" and arguing about how we don't want these features for the billionth time.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        tomnipotent 5y ago
        > that you don't think protecting that group is a critically important thing for everyone is very telling. Again you take the worst-case interpretation, with a dash of ad hominem, to help you climb that moral high ground you seem fond of. > about how we don't want these features So you speak for the whole of Google's customer base?
        chaps 5y ago
        You clearly have no intent on trying to understand why people have issues with this, so I'm done here. Best, friend.
        tomnipotent 5y ago

tomnipotent 5y ago

friedturkey 5y ago
Loads of valid issues mentioned around here describing concerns with users being tracked. Not really reactive when misuse and abuse of tracking data is so insanely common.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  - chaps 5y ago
    Can you please clarify what you mean and why you think this? Whether from a lack of experience with how these things can go badly, or from a lack of good faith in trying to understand others' concerns, it sounds like you simply don't understand why people would have issues with this. But you haven't clarified what your comments that, from my perspective, appear to be even more reactionary than the people you're accusing of being reactionary.
    - tomnipotent 5y ago
      Let's start with your earlier comments. > This is a bad feature that should not be turned on by default. Opine. Stating it matter-of-factly doesn't make it fact. > You're effectively enabling the ease of search warrants of journalists and activists' search history Here you pull the "think of the children!" card. All those poor journalists and activists using Workspaces. Your response is to bring up politically vulnerable outlier groups and parade them around to satisfy your own need to express moral outrage. > it sounds like you simply don't understand why people would have issues with this I don't understand why people want to be outraged for the sake of being outraged. It's becoming exhausting.
      - chaps 5y ago
        I bring up that group because I'm a part of that group and work with people who have been targeted with subpoenas for simply investigating a company. This is something that effects me personally and the work I do that's deeply intended to help and inform the public. That you don't think protecting that group is a critically important thing for everyone is very telling. What's exhausting is having to keep up to date with how to continue turning off these awful "features" and arguing about how we don't want these features for the billionth time.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        tomnipotent 5y ago
        > that you don't think protecting that group is a critically important thing for everyone is very telling. Again you take the worst-case interpretation, with a dash of ad hominem, to help you climb that moral high ground you seem fond of. > about how we don't want these features So you speak for the whole of Google's customer base?
        chaps 5y ago
        You clearly have no intent on trying to understand why people have issues with this, so I'm done here. Best, friend.
        tomnipotent 5y ago