3 ms·
>when Apple tried to push a U2 album to them? They lost their collective shit and that's exactly it. putting something in your music library is a hugely more
by notatoad 3y ago
>when Apple tried to push a U2 album to them? They lost their collective shit
and that's exactly it. putting something in your music library is a hugely more visible and tangible thing than all the nebulous privacy concerns the internet wants me to be afraid of. nobody gives a shit if google or apple or facebook or whoever else introduces some techical measure that could be used for nefarious things. they only care if that api is actually used for nefarious things. as long as the argument is "well if google implements X, then it would potentially allow them to do Y*, that's a failing argument.
like it or not, people actually do trust the big tech companies. as long as they aren't actively abusing that trust in ways that people care about, things like "google wants to know if you're a real person or a bot" aren't going to cause a whole lot of outrage. most people can understand that letting fake people pretend to be real is bad, and that preventing that is probably a good thing.
- Springtime 3y ago> as long as the argument is "well if google implements X, then it would potentially allow them to do Y", that's a failing argument. It's similar to privacy 'dead bodies'[1], where users want to know actual concrete examples. I keep a collection of them in a larger directory of web pages about privacy, about instances where 'nebulous' privacy aspects meet reality and users are impacted and upset by it. [1] Term used by a law professor in Daniel J. Solove's "I've got nothing to hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
- Toreno96 3y ago> Daniel J. Solove's "I've got nothing to hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy That was an interesting read, thank you!
- DropInIn 3y agoSo your argument is that as long as the harms are invisible enough to the consumer that no action should be taken? May I introduce you to Tobacco?