4 ms·

Mind mentioning some of the "many companies" that USV invests in that "profit from invading privacy"? Perhaps you're right, but that's a serious accusation wit

by jsherry 15y ago

Mind mentioning some of the "many companies" that USV invests in that "profit from invading privacy"? Perhaps you're right, but that's a serious accusation without some backup. Aside from Zynga who has definitely had their fair share of well deserved criticism in the past (but has since cleaned up their act), what are the others?

jcr 15y ago
I don't consider it a serious accusation at all, or even a significant criticism. It's merely just a statement of the obvious, namely, the currently used tech/standards. A more fair question would be, "Which of the USV funded ventures refuse to use commonly abused technologies like cookies or javascript?" The underlying problems of privacy and security cannot be blamed on Fred Wilson or any specific company his group has funded, or any specific company whatsoever. The underlying problems are rooted in the widespread adoption of tech/standards that can easily be abused. In other words, all of us are to blame. The other important part is looking at what we would give up by trying to abandon the easily abused tech/standards. We would give up far more than just the usability and compatibility as seen from the user perspective; the companies on the provider perspective would have to give up existing investments, profit centers, and competitive advantages by refusing to support easily abused tech/standards. If some undefined "critical mass" of users started only using tech that prevented privacy and security vulnerabilities, the companies providing services would be forced to adapt. From the other side, companies would not willingly give up their investments, profit centers, and competitive advantages just to be nice to users. In fact, most companies would try to thwart the adoption of software (browsers) designed to prevent abuses by requiring users to use something else. This is already the case with many sites since the sites are unusable without easily abused features enabled. Pointing a finger a Zynga, or Facebook, or some other company is entirely unfair; they are just trying to compete and profit in the current situation. Even everyone's favorite non-profit Internet darling, wikipedia, can break if you fail to send it an acceptable USER_AGENT string (specifically wikipedia search). I've had the displeasure of explaining to my mom why the FLASH videos on her favorite recipe site don't work on her iPad. Of course, this is due to Apple simply deciding to not support FLASH on their iOS devices. Some video sites have adjusted to the change, for example YouTube, but others refuse to adapt and require people to use something else to access their sites. It has been interesting to see how this user-based change pushes other companies to adapt, and to some degree, it seems to be working. If you think about all the investments in FLASH that need to be abandoned in order to support the iPad users, it's a staggering number, but in the long run, it might be for the best. Similar might also be true for other easily abused tech/standards, and it seems a whole lot better than letting clueless people create new laws about it.

by jsherry 15y ago

jcr 15y ago

I don't consider it a serious accusation at all, or even a significant criticism. It's merely just a statement of the obvious, namely, the currently used tech/standards. A more fair question would be, "Which of the USV funded ventures refuse to use commonly abused technologies like cookies or javascript?" The underlying problems of privacy and security cannot be blamed on Fred Wilson or any specific company his group has funded, or any specific company whatsoever. The underlying problems are rooted in the widespread adoption of tech/standards that can easily be abused. In other words, all of us are to blame. The other important part is looking at what we would give up by trying to abandon the easily abused tech/standards. We would give up far more than just the usability and compatibility as seen from the user perspective; the companies on the provider perspective would have to give up existing investments, profit centers, and competitive advantages by refusing to support easily abused tech/standards. If some undefined "critical mass" of users started only using tech that prevented privacy and security vulnerabilities, the companies providing services would be forced to adapt. From the other side, companies would not willingly give up their investments, profit centers, and competitive advantages just to be nice to users. In fact, most companies would try to thwart the adoption of software (browsers) designed to prevent abuses by requiring users to use something else. This is already the case with many sites since the sites are unusable without easily abused features enabled. Pointing a finger a Zynga, or Facebook, or some other company is entirely unfair; they are just trying to compete and profit in the current situation. Even everyone's favorite non-profit Internet darling, wikipedia, can break if you fail to send it an acceptable USER_AGENT string (specifically wikipedia search). I've had the displeasure of explaining to my mom why the FLASH videos on her favorite recipe site don't work on her iPad. Of course, this is due to Apple simply deciding to not support FLASH on their iOS devices. Some video sites have adjusted to the change, for example YouTube, but others refuse to adapt and require people to use something else to access their sites. It has been interesting to see how this user-based change pushes other companies to adapt, and to some degree, it seems to be working. If you think about all the investments in FLASH that need to be abandoned in order to support the iPad users, it's a staggering number, but in the long run, it might be for the best. Similar might also be true for other easily abused tech/standards, and it seems a whole lot better than letting clueless people create new laws about it.