5 ms·

Friendly suggestion to peruse Jetbrain's third-party data-sharing agreement while considering what information of a user, even in theory, it might forbid them t

by RunSet 3y ago

Friendly suggestion to peruse Jetbrain's third-party data-sharing agreement while considering what information of a user, even in theory, it might forbid them to share with anyone they wish for any reason they please. https://www.jetbrains.com/legal/docs/privacy/third-parties/ https://www.jetbrains.com/legal/docs/privacy/third-parties/ After you do that here are some IDEs that (so far as I know) don't have data-sharing agreements with third parties. https://downloads.codelite.org/ https://downloads.codelite.org/ https://vscodium.com/ https://vscodium.com/

Bjartr 3y ago
Nothing listed there is anything particularly problematic so far as I can see. Can you be more specific? If you're saying that it's sufficiently vague as to not actually limit them in any way, then I'm wondering what a better privacy policy would look like. One that gives them proper leeway for the legitimate day-to-day workings of a company, but which manages to not be just as vague. One thing worth remembering here is that the alternatives you mention are exclusively IDEs, whereas the JetBrains privacy policy covers the data sharing they do for their whole ecosystem of products and services, not just their IDEs.
WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
Interesting that you didn't even mention their opensource community edition: https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community wich powers plenty of other open source IDEs, yet you push vscodium Nice FUD ;)
- krono 3y ago
  Which also seems to be covered by the same privacy policy. That FUD accusation was a bit premature. For the record I dislike both vendors' products equally as much :) https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/60f8208092d13426de11954934f6eff3383c21d6/platform/platform-resources/src/PrivacyPolicy.html https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/60f8208...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Xeamek 3y ago
    And what EXACTLY do you object to in the link You've pasted?
    - krono 3y ago
      The ferocity with which that ask comes across has me thinking there's only a very limited set of right answers! Promise you won't sue me or anything if my answer turns out to be unsatisfactory? ;)
      - Xeamek 3y ago
        Ferocity comes simply from the fact that you are grifting and spreading almost miss-info
        krono 3y ago
        Are you sure you've got the right person here? The only comment I posted on this entire post was the one[0] where I said: "Which also seems to be covered by the same privacy policy". I purposefully used the word "seems" because I'm not entirely sure whether that's true, and also included a link so people can check it out for themselves. If you honestly consider this grifting and intentional misdirection, then I'd be interested to hear what you believe I'm trying to achieve here. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36956495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36956495
xpe 3y ago
[flagged]
- coldtea 3y ago
  Discussion and subthreads off the main thread flow organically, and it's OK for them to not stay strictly on the main topic of the post (they're still on the topic of debugging, they haven't suddenly started talking about cars or stamp collecting). Sometimes the best insights and comments are found in a side-thread. Besides, this is one of several comments you've left with the same putdowns in this thread. They have added more irrelevant to the discussion noise than their parent comments ever did.
  - xpe 3y ago
    I intend for this to come across as somewhat philosophical, and I hope people can see how this as beneficial. We need more grounding in philosophy here in the technology world. > Discussion and subthreads off the main thread flow organically, and it's OK for them to not stay strictly on the main topic of the post Sure, it is "OK" per the HN Guidelines. Also, yes, these things happen. Lots of things happen, and they have a range of desirability. (See also the naturalistic fallacy, is-ought fallacy, and appeal to nature.) Not all comments and subthreads are equally useful to us. It is ok for me or anyone to shape the conversation in ways that they think are beneficial. We don't have to agree on the fundamental principles in play here; we have different approaches and probably values. > Besides, this is one of several comments you've left with the same putdowns in this thread. It is completely inaccurate to call my comments "putdowns" which are defined as "snub, disparaging remark, insult, slight, affront, rebuff, sneer, disparagement, humiliation, slap in the face, barb, jibe...". These comments are constructive criticisms. (You may not like that they involve an explicitly stated redirection. Not everyone may be as up-front as I am about what I'm doing, but redirection is common, useful, and essential.) People can take it, leave it, and/or comment about it. This is how discussion can work, and it is also how discussion should work in many cases. > They have added more irrelevant to the discussion noise than their parent comments ever did. It seems inconsistent to say "Discussion and subthreads off the main thread flow organically" while criticizing my comment using a comment of your own, don't you think? If it is ok for conversations to meander like you suggest, then it is ok to have conversations about what we're talking about, including suggestions about where to take them. Take Away: You expressed your point of view; this is fine. I happen to disagree, and I've given my reasoning. It has been civil, and it is ok. On Topic Drift: Let me ask you this: would you rather have a thread about debugging wander off into, e.g. criticisms of JetBrains the company? I personally would not. You might. This is fine. Governance: There are questions of "what is best" that are not easily agreed upon. The Hacker News (HN) Guidelines are a good start, but they are incomplete. We also don't get a direct influence in what they are. They are "handed down" to us. We're participants here without direct influence on policy or goverance. We can vote up and down, flag, or persuade with discussion. We don't have other ways to guide policy or govern here on HN. There is are tracks/paths to increased moderation abilities, such as with Stack Exchange web sites or Wikipedia. There are no "meta" channels either. Infighting By Design: Due to the lack of proper governance, these kinds of discussions happen a lot, and they can be divisive. We should not "blame" ourselves when they happen. If anything, the unifying 'problem' is Hacker News itself. This is a design issue. Human nature is predictable. Until HN offers more ways to handle it directly, these kinds of conversations will keep happening. My goal here?: I hope I've elevated the discussion beyond what could have been a rather uninteresting clash over simplistic ideas over "what is on-topic?" or "what are the rules?" or even "what is right?". Personal Motivations: Both open discussions and ethics matter tremendously. Too often people don't address the elephant in the room, which often involves "how do we want these conversations to work"? while also admitting "we don't really have the levers of control we might want." Throughout a 20+ year career, I rarely see thoughtful, substantive conversations about these topics. Too many technology people skip right past them.
intelVISA 3y ago
Unfortunately JetBrains, like many, are unwilling to pass up on exploiting the good margins on data extraction - even at the expense of their products and userbase.
Xeamek 3y ago
[flagged]

by RunSet 3y ago

Bjartr 3y ago

Nothing listed there is anything particularly problematic so far as I can see. Can you be more specific? If you're saying that it's sufficiently vague as to not actually limit them in any way, then I'm wondering what a better privacy policy would look like. One that gives them proper leeway for the legitimate day-to-day workings of a company, but which manages to not be just as vague. One thing worth remembering here is that the alternatives you mention are exclusively IDEs, whereas the JetBrains privacy policy covers the data sharing they do for their whole ecosystem of products and services, not just their IDEs.

WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago

Interesting that you didn't even mention their opensource community edition: https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community wich powers plenty of other open source IDEs, yet you push vscodium Nice FUD ;)

krono 3y ago
Which also seems to be covered by the same privacy policy. That FUD accusation was a bit premature. For the record I dislike both vendors' products equally as much :) https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/60f8208092d13426de11954934f6eff3383c21d6/platform/platform-resources/src/PrivacyPolicy.html https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/60f8208...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Xeamek 3y ago
  And what EXACTLY do you object to in the link You've pasted?
  - krono 3y ago
    The ferocity with which that ask comes across has me thinking there's only a very limited set of right answers! Promise you won't sue me or anything if my answer turns out to be unsatisfactory? ;)
    - Xeamek 3y ago
      Ferocity comes simply from the fact that you are grifting and spreading almost miss-info
      - krono 3y ago
        Are you sure you've got the right person here? The only comment I posted on this entire post was the one[0] where I said: "Which also seems to be covered by the same privacy policy". I purposefully used the word "seems" because I'm not entirely sure whether that's true, and also included a link so people can check it out for themselves. If you honestly consider this grifting and intentional misdirection, then I'd be interested to hear what you believe I'm trying to achieve here. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36956495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36956495

xpe 3y ago

[flagged]

coldtea 3y ago
Discussion and subthreads off the main thread flow organically, and it's OK for them to not stay strictly on the main topic of the post (they're still on the topic of debugging, they haven't suddenly started talking about cars or stamp collecting). Sometimes the best insights and comments are found in a side-thread. Besides, this is one of several comments you've left with the same putdowns in this thread. They have added more irrelevant to the discussion noise than their parent comments ever did.
- xpe 3y ago
  I intend for this to come across as somewhat philosophical, and I hope people can see how this as beneficial. We need more grounding in philosophy here in the technology world. > Discussion and subthreads off the main thread flow organically, and it's OK for them to not stay strictly on the main topic of the post Sure, it is "OK" per the HN Guidelines. Also, yes, these things happen. Lots of things happen, and they have a range of desirability. (See also the naturalistic fallacy, is-ought fallacy, and appeal to nature.) Not all comments and subthreads are equally useful to us. It is ok for me or anyone to shape the conversation in ways that they think are beneficial. We don't have to agree on the fundamental principles in play here; we have different approaches and probably values. > Besides, this is one of several comments you've left with the same putdowns in this thread. It is completely inaccurate to call my comments "putdowns" which are defined as "snub, disparaging remark, insult, slight, affront, rebuff, sneer, disparagement, humiliation, slap in the face, barb, jibe...". These comments are constructive criticisms. (You may not like that they involve an explicitly stated redirection. Not everyone may be as up-front as I am about what I'm doing, but redirection is common, useful, and essential.) People can take it, leave it, and/or comment about it. This is how discussion can work, and it is also how discussion should work in many cases. > They have added more irrelevant to the discussion noise than their parent comments ever did. It seems inconsistent to say "Discussion and subthreads off the main thread flow organically" while criticizing my comment using a comment of your own, don't you think? If it is ok for conversations to meander like you suggest, then it is ok to have conversations about what we're talking about, including suggestions about where to take them. Take Away: You expressed your point of view; this is fine. I happen to disagree, and I've given my reasoning. It has been civil, and it is ok. On Topic Drift: Let me ask you this: would you rather have a thread about debugging wander off into, e.g. criticisms of JetBrains the company? I personally would not. You might. This is fine. Governance: There are questions of "what is best" that are not easily agreed upon. The Hacker News (HN) Guidelines are a good start, but they are incomplete. We also don't get a direct influence in what they are. They are "handed down" to us. We're participants here without direct influence on policy or goverance. We can vote up and down, flag, or persuade with discussion. We don't have other ways to guide policy or govern here on HN. There is are tracks/paths to increased moderation abilities, such as with Stack Exchange web sites or Wikipedia. There are no "meta" channels either. Infighting By Design: Due to the lack of proper governance, these kinds of discussions happen a lot, and they can be divisive. We should not "blame" ourselves when they happen. If anything, the unifying 'problem' is Hacker News itself. This is a design issue. Human nature is predictable. Until HN offers more ways to handle it directly, these kinds of conversations will keep happening. My goal here?: I hope I've elevated the discussion beyond what could have been a rather uninteresting clash over simplistic ideas over "what is on-topic?" or "what are the rules?" or even "what is right?". Personal Motivations: Both open discussions and ethics matter tremendously. Too often people don't address the elephant in the room, which often involves "how do we want these conversations to work"? while also admitting "we don't really have the levers of control we might want." Throughout a 20+ year career, I rarely see thoughtful, substantive conversations about these topics. Too many technology people skip right past them.

intelVISA 3y ago

Unfortunately JetBrains, like many, are unwilling to pass up on exploiting the good margins on data extraction - even at the expense of their products and userbase.

Xeamek 3y ago

[flagged]