3 ms·

I think the author adequately and correctly focused on the framing from feedly being an important signal about how they themselves expect it to be used. The rep

I think the author adequately and correctly focused on the framing from feedly being an important signal about how they themselves expect it to be used. The repeated implication that protests are dangerous or violent, the assumption that their customers would view protests primarily as a risk to their assets: revealing! This could have been framed as a way to find nearby protests and labor actions to participate in, for example. I point that out not to say that they should or that it would be better, but to make clear this is a choice they made based on their understanding of their customers and how they would find value in the tool, not an inherently neutral or objective or inevitable framing of the tool. I think the author is right to be unsettled by it and expressed the core concern clearly. It's not necessary to carefully enumerate every precise threat that it could play a role in. In fact it may even be counterproductive, on the internet, where being precise just exposes more surface for hobbyist contrarian nitpickers to latch on to. No technology is neutral and the expected use of this one is concerning, especially considering the admitted lack of consideration they put into it. At the very least no engineer should ever participate in a project without sitting down and thinking "what's the worst thing a malicious actor could do with this" and that clearly didn't happen here.

1123581321 4y ago
It seems more likely that Feedly is like you: understanding multiple markets exist, and want different things from the same service and those things are communicated using different words. There’s still the question of whether enterprise security budgets or protest-joining budgets are larger, admittedly.
gruez 4y ago
> The repeated implication that protests are dangerous or violent, the assumption that their customers would view protests primarily as a risk to their assets: revealing! That doesn't seem like an entirely unreasonable position for their target audience (ie. enterprises) to have. Sure, not every protest is going to turn violent, but you'd still want to keep tabs on any in case they turn violent. >I think the author is right to be unsettled by it and expressed the core concern clearly. It's not necessary to carefully enumerate every precise threat that it could play a role in. In fact it may even be counterproductive, on the internet, where being precise just exposes more surface for hobbyist contrarian nitpickers to latch on to. It's fine to have a vague concern that you can't fully flesh out. But if you can't support a claim, don't pretend that you can, like by putting that into your blog post's headline.
bberenberg 4y ago
I have worked for employers where there were protests outside of our building. Employees felt unsafe and in an effort to protect them, corporate security monitored this type of thing and notified them so they could choose not to come into the office. It was never about strike breaking, it was entirely about making employees feel safe.

1123581321 4y ago

It seems more likely that Feedly is like you: understanding multiple markets exist, and want different things from the same service and those things are communicated using different words. There’s still the question of whether enterprise security budgets or protest-joining budgets are larger, admittedly.

gruez 4y ago

> The repeated implication that protests are dangerous or violent, the assumption that their customers would view protests primarily as a risk to their assets: revealing! That doesn't seem like an entirely unreasonable position for their target audience (ie. enterprises) to have. Sure, not every protest is going to turn violent, but you'd still want to keep tabs on any in case they turn violent. >I think the author is right to be unsettled by it and expressed the core concern clearly. It's not necessary to carefully enumerate every precise threat that it could play a role in. In fact it may even be counterproductive, on the internet, where being precise just exposes more surface for hobbyist contrarian nitpickers to latch on to. It's fine to have a vague concern that you can't fully flesh out. But if you can't support a claim, don't pretend that you can, like by putting that into your blog post's headline.

bberenberg 4y ago

I have worked for employers where there were protests outside of our building. Employees felt unsafe and in an effort to protect them, corporate security monitored this type of thing and notified them so they could choose not to come into the office. It was never about strike breaking, it was entirely about making employees feel safe.