4 ms·
I'll save everyone the quick search. They added really basic opt-in telemetry, and then removed it after an out-of-proportion outcry.
by mb7733 4y ago
I'll save everyone the quick search. They added really basic opt-in telemetry, and then removed it after an out-of-proportion outcry.
- swyx 4y agoi dont understand privacy maniacs. have telemetry in from the start, nobody bats an eye. add it later, everyone freaks.
- hutzlibu 4y agoSimple, privacy "maniacs" do not install something with telemetry integrated by default. So of course they freak, when it is suddenly creeping in, in something they trusted.
- tuckerpo 4y agoespecially if it's opt-in (which is provable since the project is entirely open-source) -- can people simply _not_ opt-in if they disagree with telemetry?
- eurasiantiger 4y agoIn the first case, intentions are clear from the start, so user trust can be built. In the second case, intentions have been hidden or they have changed, which obviously erodes user trust.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- robocat 4y agoGood write-up here: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/07/no-open-source-audacity-audio-editor-is-not-spyware/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/07/no-open-source-audac... It wasn’t clear it was opt-in (although maybe the code was clear?). Either way, adding telemetry (especially to open source) is obviously going to cause a ruckus, so they obviously mishandled the situation.