> ...use Go professionally and work for a company that uses Go... Despite having a clear financial interest, that doesn't mean that the opinions of other Go us

> ...use Go professionally and work for a company that uses Go... Despite having a clear financial interest, that doesn't mean that the opinions of other Go users shouldn't be respected or considered. > Allows them to figure out what people do with Go in the wild without having to ask them... > ...there are unknowable megabytes of private Go code that will never see the light of day If somebody doesn't want others to know what they are doing in private, that's their right. The default is not to ignore or violate someone else's privacy or rights. > ...the only way to really know how someone uses a tool is to have the tool snitch on them. This is giving off the vibe of having a fundamental lack of respect for privacy, and the users of "the product". Maybe it's not meant that way, but that's the vibe that appears to be broadcasted. It's like a programmer or spouse thinking that installing spyware on the computers of others is fine, because they feel like it or just cause they can, and communication, discussion, nor consent is acceptable enough. Maybe if the person was asked first, they might say "no" or "lie", so let's try to be slick and get away with doing something foul or unwanted to them. Golang users clearly told Google employees what is and is not acceptable for them, thus opt-in. Arguably, the problem is more about Google and/or its employees would rather not listen nor really want two way discussions, but prefer if they could dictate and force. That's where the drama appears to be coming from. If anything, this should give more people pause, to go ahead and consider alternative languages that can do similar.