4 ms·

> while the reason they aren't turning it on could be they are lazy and don't want to do any extra work Why would you assume that? I think most people care an

> while the reason they aren't turning it on could be they are lazy and don't want to do any extra work Why would you assume that? I think most people care and wouldn't turn it on if asked to.

joshuamorton 4y ago
Because the 90/9/1 rule applies to most things. 90% of people are content with the defaults, whatever they are. They have no opinion on telemetry, especially telemetry that is privacy respecting. They're not going to go to the effort of modifying configs for that purpose, but that's true either way. They wouldn't turn it on if asked, but they also wouldn't turn it off if you told them about it.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > Because the 90/9/1 rule applies to most things I'm not very convinced by that line of reasoning. By that logic, most people don't care whether or not their government is a dictatorship. Which is (I hope) obviously not true.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    I said most things. "Privacy preserving, minimally invasive telemetry" and "literal fascism" are obviously not comparable and it's disingenuous to try and equivocate them.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      What a coincidence that "most things" applies when you want it, but doesn't when you don't.
mattmcknight 4y ago
>> while the reason they aren't turning it on could be they are lazy and don't want to do any extra work > Why would you assume that? I didn't assume it, I said "could be". > I think most people care and wouldn't turn it on if asked to. If people don't like it, they can turn it off. Are you assuming most won't if asked to?
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > If people don't like it, they can turn it off. If telemetry is opt-out, there's a good chance most people won't be aware that it's even there - that's deceptive. At the very least, there should be a big scary banner saying "your data is being sent to our servers" on every single command - that's the only way you can assure that everyone who uses the tool will be informed. > Are you assuming most won't if asked to? The big argument to opt-out telemetry is that "opt-in doesn't work", so yes, I'm assuming most won't. If my assumption is wrong, why not just ask people? They'll say "yes" anyway.
  - mattmcknight 4y ago
    > At the very least, there should be a big scary banner saying "your data is being sent to our servers" on every single command - that's the only way you can assure that everyone who uses the tool will be informed. It should probably say- "Ensure that the functions and libraries you use continue to be supported by sharing your usage statistics." > If my assumption is wrong, why not just ask people? They'll say "yes" anyway. There's not really a great place to ask, but it could be a checkbox in the installer, sure.

> while the reason they aren't turning it on could be they are lazy and don't want to do any extra work Why would you assume that? I think most people care and wouldn't turn it on if asked to.

joshuamorton 4y ago

Because the 90/9/1 rule applies to most things. 90% of people are content with the defaults, whatever they are. They have no opinion on telemetry, especially telemetry that is privacy respecting. They're not going to go to the effort of modifying configs for that purpose, but that's true either way. They wouldn't turn it on if asked, but they also wouldn't turn it off if you told them about it.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> Because the 90/9/1 rule applies to most things I'm not very convinced by that line of reasoning. By that logic, most people don't care whether or not their government is a dictatorship. Which is (I hope) obviously not true.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  I said most things. "Privacy preserving, minimally invasive telemetry" and "literal fascism" are obviously not comparable and it's disingenuous to try and equivocate them.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    What a coincidence that "most things" applies when you want it, but doesn't when you don't.

mattmcknight 4y ago

>> while the reason they aren't turning it on could be they are lazy and don't want to do any extra work > Why would you assume that? I didn't assume it, I said "could be". > I think most people care and wouldn't turn it on if asked to. If people don't like it, they can turn it off. Are you assuming most won't if asked to?

bheadmaster 4y ago
> If people don't like it, they can turn it off. If telemetry is opt-out, there's a good chance most people won't be aware that it's even there - that's deceptive. At the very least, there should be a big scary banner saying "your data is being sent to our servers" on every single command - that's the only way you can assure that everyone who uses the tool will be informed. > Are you assuming most won't if asked to? The big argument to opt-out telemetry is that "opt-in doesn't work", so yes, I'm assuming most won't. If my assumption is wrong, why not just ask people? They'll say "yes" anyway.
- mattmcknight 4y ago
  > At the very least, there should be a big scary banner saying "your data is being sent to our servers" on every single command - that's the only way you can assure that everyone who uses the tool will be informed. It should probably say- "Ensure that the functions and libraries you use continue to be supported by sharing your usage statistics." > If my assumption is wrong, why not just ask people? They'll say "yes" anyway. There's not really a great place to ask, but it could be a checkbox in the installer, sure.