3 ms·

Giving ChromeOS devices to low tech users that cannot understand the privacy and lock-in risks feels like a tech version of giving kids cigarettes. It is simply

• water-your-self 4y ago
  >but we should not make that choice for others. Much of the HN crowd has their finances intertwined with forcing these kinds of choices on consumers. Sometimes I dream of an awful de-anonymized internet where your financial holdings are bound to every post that you make online. I think binding that incentive might change how we ingest opinions.
  • lrvick 4y ago
    Already on the internet we can choose to use our real name when we are comfortable having our reputation tied to our words giving them more weight, and we can also be anonymous other times when we are okay with our words holding very little weight, but also very little risk to us. I think many people, if they find a comment really impactful, will take a look and see if this was said by someone using their real name and if there are obviously relevant major corporate biases they didn't disclose. Or maybe I am weird and am just trying to justify that I personally do this often. Regardless, both anonymous and identified communication are very valuable depending on the particular goal, and it should always be a switch everyone is empowered to be able flip at any time. Sometimes when I am testing out ideas to decide how I even feel about something myself, I may choose to be anonymous. Most of the time, I am fine with most of my posts on HN being under my real name and tied to my reputation and that of the security and privacy consulting company I run. I still reserve the right to change my mind and be wrong sometimes and trust most of my target customers to give me some room for that :)
• ip_addr 4y ago
  low-tech users don't care much for their privacy in my experiences. This may be due partially due to the lack of understanding, but also due to cultural differences different from the average hn user. The time needed to teach them how to use complicated security systems just isn't worth it for them most of the time. People have different priorities. Most people just want to use their computers as a utility or for playing fun games or something. I'm sure there's some complicated oven i could use that would be way better in the long run but I just wanna make pizza sometimes, not the best pizza in the world at the perfect temperature.
  • lrvick 4y ago
    If an oven leaked a lot of pm2.5 or Carbon Monoxide and it happened to still be legal, it would still be an ethical obligation for someone that is aware of these issues to recommend against that oven even if someone just wants the cheap/easy option and does not comprehend the risks. Those that can comprehend significant technical risks are obligated to recommend a low-risk strategy until people have enough relevant understanding to take informed risks for themselves. I would for instance never let a minor use apps like TikTok known to granularly monitor and sell their location and behavior to keep them maximally addicted and maximally profitable. If the user is an adult tech worker that understands how such apps work and has the means to actually understand the privacy policy... then I will find their choice stupid but it is their life.
    • ip_addr 4y ago
      I agree with most of what you said. I think privacy is important and it is important to educate people on these issues. I just think that say a grocery store worker that just wants to get the bills paid for next month and enjoy life a little has a different set of priorities than a tech worker making > 60,000 USD. There are more people like that in the United States than tech workers.
      • lrvick 4y ago
        Sire. It is on tech workers to not exploit everyone else that does not understand the dangers.