3 ms·
> instead it's more useful to ask "will this be useful?" Well, that's also the wrong way to look at it. Because everything, no matter how broadly bad it might
by jjav 3y ago
> instead it's more useful to ask "will this be useful?"
Well, that's also the wrong way to look at it. Because everything, no matter how broadly bad it might be, is useful to someone somewhere.
Of course telemetry can be useful to the developer of the application (if they look at the data and act on it). But at the same time it violates the privacy of all its users, who vastly outnumber (at least for most projects) its developers.
For any argument we need to look at pros & cons, not just the pros.
- arp242 3y agoI think that should go without saying, but yes, obviously you're correct that "useful" involves arguments about advantages and disadvantage. The previous poster wasn't talking about trade-offs though.
- revelio 3y agoThe vast, vast majority of people simply do not care about this type of privacy (from absolute strangers with no details about their personal lives). It's a nerd canard that this type of data sharing matters. Android, iOS, Windows, macOS, Chrome, games consoles, Docker, VS Code, IntelliJ etc. They all collect telemetry and stats on how they are used. That didn't stop them becoming monster success stories even amongst the developer population because nobody cares. The Go team are right to do this. Really, we should all be following their lead. Software telemetry is essentially pure win with no downsides for end users, which is why everyone has adopted it. It can also be done in better ways than we do now, like by recording stats in human readable form in files that sit around for a while before they get uploaded, so uploads can be turned to manual mode for inspection by the 0.1% of people who do seriously care.