5 ms·

That's a misuse of those terms. If you're presented with a switch that's in the the on position you don't switch it off, it's arguable that you've opted to leav

That's a misuse of those terms. If you're presented with a switch that's in the the on position you don't switch it off, it's arguable that you've opted to leave it on. If you never realized the switch existed it would definitely be incorrect to say that you've opted to leave it off, since you can't make decisions about things you don't know exist. Yet, both cases would appear the same if all you know is which users had an opt-out setting in the in position.

ianferrel 3y ago
It's not a misuse, it's the natural language meaning of the word "opt", which long predates anything like the opt-in/opt-out usage that refers to default settings.
zztop44 3y ago
The verb “to opt” just means to make a choice. Programmers created the “opt in/opt out” binary as a useful way of describing how new features got rolled out. But it’s perfectly fine to say (for example) that I “out out” of voting, even though voting is an “opt-in feature” of our society (depending on where you live). You could rephrase the 23andme statement to be something like “users of this feature can choose from a range of privacy settings. For complete privacy, do not use this feature (which is the default setting).”
- Phemist 3y ago
  This use of opt-out is really an extreme edge case to be honest. There is such a heavy emphasis on civic duty, part of which is to vote in all kinds of elections, that even though the system might strictly be an opt-in voting system, everybody _expects_ you to have already opted-in. To be honest, as somebody not from the US, I don't even understand why you need to go through any hoops to vote. All of it just seems like voting suppression to me. Anyway, this strong social expectation to vote is the only reason you can even remotely say that you are "opting-out" of voting. Any other case, where a decision to be made only exists really as a feature in the UI, there is a much tighter relation between the implementation of the UI feature being by default on (thus "opt-out") and the way that we speak about it being "opt-out". If thus, by their own admission, there are things to opt-out of, then this is by definition an opt-out feature. Claiming the opposite is disingenuous.
- deadbeeves 3y ago
  Exactly, so I'll reiterate: if all you know is that setting A is opt-out and that user B has that setting turned on (i.e. in its default value), it's incorrect to say that the user has opted into the setting, because you don't even know if the user knows the setting exists, and one can't make a choice about something one doesn't know exists. The most you can say is that the user has not opted out of the setting.
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    You can’t be sure of that, maybe they think they opted out but failed to do so correctly.
- xmprt 3y ago
  If the default setting is to enable the feature, then the feature isn't opt-in because the user didn't "opt" (ie, choose) to enable it. For a feature to be opt-in, the user must explicitly choose/opt to enable it. Otherwise, the user didn't opt for anything and if you enable it anyways then the choice to be made is to opt out.

ianferrel 3y ago

It's not a misuse, it's the natural language meaning of the word "opt", which long predates anything like the opt-in/opt-out usage that refers to default settings.

zztop44 3y ago

The verb “to opt” just means to make a choice. Programmers created the “opt in/opt out” binary as a useful way of describing how new features got rolled out. But it’s perfectly fine to say (for example) that I “out out” of voting, even though voting is an “opt-in feature” of our society (depending on where you live). You could rephrase the 23andme statement to be something like “users of this feature can choose from a range of privacy settings. For complete privacy, do not use this feature (which is the default setting).”

Phemist 3y ago
This use of opt-out is really an extreme edge case to be honest. There is such a heavy emphasis on civic duty, part of which is to vote in all kinds of elections, that even though the system might strictly be an opt-in voting system, everybody _expects_ you to have already opted-in. To be honest, as somebody not from the US, I don't even understand why you need to go through any hoops to vote. All of it just seems like voting suppression to me. Anyway, this strong social expectation to vote is the only reason you can even remotely say that you are "opting-out" of voting. Any other case, where a decision to be made only exists really as a feature in the UI, there is a much tighter relation between the implementation of the UI feature being by default on (thus "opt-out") and the way that we speak about it being "opt-out". If thus, by their own admission, there are things to opt-out of, then this is by definition an opt-out feature. Claiming the opposite is disingenuous.
deadbeeves 3y ago
Exactly, so I'll reiterate: if all you know is that setting A is opt-out and that user B has that setting turned on (i.e. in its default value), it's incorrect to say that the user has opted into the setting, because you don't even know if the user knows the setting exists, and one can't make a choice about something one doesn't know exists. The most you can say is that the user has not opted out of the setting.
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  You can’t be sure of that, maybe they think they opted out but failed to do so correctly.
xmprt 3y ago
If the default setting is to enable the feature, then the feature isn't opt-in because the user didn't "opt" (ie, choose) to enable it. For a feature to be opt-in, the user must explicitly choose/opt to enable it. Otherwise, the user didn't opt for anything and if you enable it anyways then the choice to be made is to opt out.