4 ms·

It’d be clearer if they just said “opted-in by default”.

• azangru 3y ago
  I thought the opting is something that is done by the user. If someone else has opted you in, that's... something different.
• larschdk 3y ago
  No. To "opt" literally means "to make a choice". If the choice has been made for you, you are not "opted-in", you are in.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • Y_Y 3y ago
    Maybe you could Newspeakify it into "co-opt-in"
    • Obscurity4340 3y ago
      No. Opt-out means you have to affirmatively make the choice to not be tracked or whtatever.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  • iamacyborg 3y ago
    That’s being needlessly pedantic and being opted-in clearly details what has happened.
    • JohnFen 3y ago
      I could not disagree more. You can't "opt-in" someone else because they're not opting in at all. I think this is an important and meaningful distinction that we should call out, particularly since we're seeing more companies being deceptive on this point and trying to trick people through this confusing language.
      • iamacyborg 3y ago
        And yet the British data protection agency thinks you can via something called a soft opt-in.
  • quickthrower2 3y ago
    A choice was still made.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• core-utility 3y ago
  "Enabled by default" would make more sense, and imply that it could be disabled.
  • Obscurity4340 3y ago
    So tired of these language games and dark patterns. Wittgenstein would be proud. Apple is also legendary for this.
• Narishma 3y ago
  In other words, opt-out. Which just proves op's point. The title is at best misleading.
• croes 3y ago
  There is no opt-in by default, you are in by default, then it's opt-out, if you can disable it or is out by default then it's opt-in.