3 ms·

Amazon deleting 1984 is not gaslighting. Gaslighting has a specific meaning, and part of it is refusing to acknowledge an action. I'm not so sure syncing is a

by rtpg 4y ago

Amazon deleting 1984 is not gaslighting. Gaslighting has a specific meaning, and part of it is refusing to acknowledge an action. I'm not so sure syncing is a great example, either. Not like they hide it Though adtech tracking and topics stuff sure feels like gaslighting. They say they're not listening, and I can kind of believe a stochiastic thing of "well you're actually friends on FB with the other person and they looked at this product so...." but there's a lot of times where it really feels like the only explanation is mics everywhere listening to conversations, even though I know it's not that! But is it?

pcthrowaway 4y ago
Google Reads deleting 1984 might be gaslighting, if they chose to do it only for users who hadn't opened the book on any device in >6 months, and who had purchase notifications sent to a gmail address, which they could also retroactively delete or modify emails referencing their purchase from.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> part of it is refusing to acknowledge an action. Algorithms are not great at acknowledging their actions, so I think that's very much part of peoples' experience with big-tech. Examples of an update breaking things, or an account getting deleted, and a responsible person quickly admitting "yes we did that, and here's why", are rare. The usual response is to deflect or stonewall. It's practically on page one of the PR playbook. > I'm not so sure syncing is a great example, either. Not like they hide it I think you are seeing this from the developers' viewpoint. There's been plenty of examples where this stuff is on by default and users have been unaware of it. > explanation is mics everywhere listening to conversations, even though I know it's not that! But is it? It's that doubt which is the seed of soft, pervading anxiety, that does the damage.

by rtpg 4y ago

pcthrowaway 4y ago

Google Reads deleting 1984 might be gaslighting, if they chose to do it only for users who hadn't opened the book on any device in >6 months, and who had purchase notifications sent to a gmail address, which they could also retroactively delete or modify emails referencing their purchase from.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> part of it is refusing to acknowledge an action. Algorithms are not great at acknowledging their actions, so I think that's very much part of peoples' experience with big-tech. Examples of an update breaking things, or an account getting deleted, and a responsible person quickly admitting "yes we did that, and here's why", are rare. The usual response is to deflect or stonewall. It's practically on page one of the PR playbook. > I'm not so sure syncing is a great example, either. Not like they hide it I think you are seeing this from the developers' viewpoint. There's been plenty of examples where this stuff is on by default and users have been unaware of it. > explanation is mics everywhere listening to conversations, even though I know it's not that! But is it? It's that doubt which is the seed of soft, pervading anxiety, that does the damage.