3 ms·

But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway.

throwaway290 3y ago
Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations. They will be fine
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Donations are voluntary.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    So is your use of Wikipedia. Your point?
    - mdp2021 3y ago
      The contextual critical matter in accessing information is that you do it in privacy. When you finance the source you relatively openly promote the source. The two activities are dissimilar.
      - throwaway290 3y ago
        > The contextual critical matter in accessing information is that you do it in privacy. Since when, in human history, was this an implicit critical assumption in anyone's mind? > The two activities are dissimilar. Yes they are different activities. The point is still: Wikipedia doesn't worry about integrating with systems that require you to be identified. (Actually, internet is another such system, you can't use it without providing some form of ID in probably most countries.)
        mdp2021 3y ago
        > Since when, in human history, was this an implicit critical assumption in anyone's mind? Since we discovered Dignity, that has been a fundamental tenet. (Yes there are also many occasions «in human history» when the principle got instantiated for protection against the ignorant and the malevolent.) > The point is still: Wikipedia doesn't worry about integrating with systems that require you to be identified The point is not with the occasional use of those systems in special cases (e.g. donations), but with systematic use in fruition.
        throwaway290 3y ago
        > Since we discovered Dignity, that has been a fundamental tenet. So unless you are trolling you would be able to give a rough year or decade when it became an implicit assumption and why exactly, right? ;) > The point is not with the occasional use of those systems in special cases (e.g. donations), but with systematic use in fruition. No, the point is "But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway" and frankly your new goalposts are not of much interest to anyone
        mdp2021 3y ago
        The poster went «But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway» You replied «Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations. They will be fine» You were replied with observations that attempt to explain to you why your comment is out of context, and try to show you the point: -- normal people, i.e. dignified people, and prudent people, refuse to be tracked in their consumption of information. -- Wikipedia seems to be aware of the above. -- Wikipedia seems to be unavailable to enforce «privacy destroying service[s]», there where relevant: consumption of information. -- Wikipedia also accepts donations, and the process may involve tracking that somebody promotes Wikipedia financially. This is completely different from tracking individuals in their consumption of information, so it is irrelevant in that context. That an entity accepts non-anonymous donations does not imply anything about the approach such entity holds about the treatment of privacy of its users, of the fruition of its specific services. You seemed to advance that «Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations» as in «They will be fine [in employing other «privacy destroying service[s]»]»: no, they may not, that is not good reasoning, because one thing is accepting donations, another is revealing which specific services your customers used - for example, whether they read a page about Kennedy or about Oswald. Spend the required effort when reading posts.

throwaway290 3y ago

Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations. They will be fine

CamperBob2 3y ago
Donations are voluntary.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  So is your use of Wikipedia. Your point?
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    The contextual critical matter in accessing information is that you do it in privacy. When you finance the source you relatively openly promote the source. The two activities are dissimilar.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      > The contextual critical matter in accessing information is that you do it in privacy. Since when, in human history, was this an implicit critical assumption in anyone's mind? > The two activities are dissimilar. Yes they are different activities. The point is still: Wikipedia doesn't worry about integrating with systems that require you to be identified. (Actually, internet is another such system, you can't use it without providing some form of ID in probably most countries.)
      - mdp2021 3y ago
        > Since when, in human history, was this an implicit critical assumption in anyone's mind? Since we discovered Dignity, that has been a fundamental tenet. (Yes there are also many occasions «in human history» when the principle got instantiated for protection against the ignorant and the malevolent.) > The point is still: Wikipedia doesn't worry about integrating with systems that require you to be identified The point is not with the occasional use of those systems in special cases (e.g. donations), but with systematic use in fruition.
        throwaway290 3y ago
        > Since we discovered Dignity, that has been a fundamental tenet. So unless you are trolling you would be able to give a rough year or decade when it became an implicit assumption and why exactly, right? ;) > The point is not with the occasional use of those systems in special cases (e.g. donations), but with systematic use in fruition. No, the point is "But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway" and frankly your new goalposts are not of much interest to anyone
        mdp2021 3y ago
        The poster went «But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway» You replied «Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations. They will be fine» You were replied with observations that attempt to explain to you why your comment is out of context, and try to show you the point: -- normal people, i.e. dignified people, and prudent people, refuse to be tracked in their consumption of information. -- Wikipedia seems to be aware of the above. -- Wikipedia seems to be unavailable to enforce «privacy destroying service[s]», there where relevant: consumption of information. -- Wikipedia also accepts donations, and the process may involve tracking that somebody promotes Wikipedia financially. This is completely different from tracking individuals in their consumption of information, so it is irrelevant in that context. That an entity accepts non-anonymous donations does not imply anything about the approach such entity holds about the treatment of privacy of its users, of the fruition of its specific services. You seemed to advance that «Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations» as in «They will be fine [in employing other «privacy destroying service[s]»]»: no, they may not, that is not good reasoning, because one thing is accepting donations, another is revealing which specific services your customers used - for example, whether they read a page about Kennedy or about Oswald. Spend the required effort when reading posts.