3 ms·

so if you wrote a book in Google docs, Google should have just as much right to it as you? Or Microsoft should have just as much right to the app you write in V

so if you wrote a book in Google docs, Google should have just as much right to it as you? Or Microsoft should have just as much right to the app you write in VS Code?

try_the_bass 2y ago
The sibling reply here gets at the point I was trying to make. Immediately jumping to the extreme interpretation is not exactly in good faith. There exists a middle ground in which you do not have full rights to your data generated while using SaaS products, but neither does the company who makes the SaaS product. This is why Terms of Use and Privacy Policy documents exist: to outline what rights the company wants to your data. If you don't agree to them, don't use the product. If you cannot find a product that does what you want and has a data ownership model you agree with, and you think many other people agree with you, then you have identified a market for a product. If you are unwilling or unable to build said product, perhaps your demands are unreasonable? I find it to be a childish argument to demand full control and ownership over all your data, including usage data. Like I pointed out in my original post, most people who want to control all of their data do nothing with it. They willfully destroy valuable information rather than share it with those who could use it. Sure, you might not like what they're using it for, at which point I'd be willing to agree that's a reasonable stance to take. Clearly not all data should be shared with all people. But this thread is about Figma wanting to collect data to train an AI so they can improve their product and make it easier to use. Why would you use Figma, but disagree that they should improve said product? I would find it hard to believe that you don't actually want the product to improve, which essentially boils the argument down to "I want you to make the product better, but I don't want to help you do it in any way. I don't want you to look at how I use the product to find out how it could be improved, either." That just seems wildly self-centered and antisocial.
rented_mule 2y ago
Saying Google has the same rights (including publication, etc.) as you do to your book written in Google Docs is certainly over the line. I can't speak for the grandparent, but I have to assume they didn't have this extreme in mind when writing their comment. The far more interesting question is, "Where is the line?" Is it okay for Google Docs to store your documents on Google's drives? If you want that product to exist, then it better be okay! What if Google analyzes font usage in all docs? No docs out of millions have ever used SillyFont, so they decide to remove SillyFont from the default list to declutter the interface. I don't think that's over the line. How about detecting that everyone is ignoring/undoing the spelling correction of a specific word and using that to realize they have a misspelling in their dictionary? I'd like that. How about noticing that your documents all use British spellings rather than American spellings (e.g., "colour" rather than "color"), so they adapt spell checking and autocompletion? Is that over the line? How about using everyone's text and location to build an ML classifier to determine that "go on holiday" is British and "go on a vacation" is American and using that to adapt autocompletion? What if 99% of all occurrences of the phrase "It was a dark and" end with "stormy night", so they autocomplete that? If you're writing your new book in Google Docs and I type the first five words, should it autocomplete the rest of your book for me? I think it's easy to agree this is over the line. Where is the line? I suspect we won't all agree. Is it possible to come up with somewhat standardized concepts and language around this, so that vendors can publish data usage policies that let consumers make informed decisions?
- jononor 2y ago
  Informed and voluntary consent is the line. If Google wants to use my data for something - just ask, and let me decide. The companies right now are deliberately not asking, because they are afraid that not enough people are going to accept their proposition.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    Making something opt-out is not synonymous with "not asking", especially if a) the option is presented at the time you begin to use the product (or feature, in this case!); or b) it's clearly communicated that it's being set as opt-in by default and you have a clear path to opt-out before the changes take effect. They're simply putting the burden on you to make that decision. To me, this is fair: in all likelihood, if this were an opt-in choice, Figma would receive a dismal opt-in rate. There's a huge gap between "folks who would opt in, given the choice" and "folks who would opt out, given the choice", filled with "folks who don't really care either way". The folks who don't care (and a good chunk of those who would opt out) are likely people who would never use that data themselves, so it's simply going to waste. Making it opt-out captures the most useful information for Figma, while still providing the folks who care about their "privacy" the option to not contribute their data (while still benefitting from those who do!). In all honesty, choosing to opt out of this specific data agreement comes across as the desire to freeload: folks who are opting out are choosing to not contribute to the training of the AI features they're opting in to using (remember, these are features you have to opt in to a waitlist to eventually use), while still wanting to use those same features. Under that lens, I wouldn't have a problem with Figma requiring people to share their data in order to use the AI features while they're under development (i.e. during the waitlist period). Afterwards, I can see it being an opt-in or opt-out thing--but during development of the AI features that would be trained on this data, it seems most fair to say that if you want the AI features early, you should have to contribute your own data in order to use them. That seems like a fair and equitable trade, to me?

so if you wrote a book in Google docs, Google should have just as much right to it as you? Or Microsoft should have just as much right to the app you write in VS Code?

try_the_bass 2y ago

The sibling reply here gets at the point I was trying to make. Immediately jumping to the extreme interpretation is not exactly in good faith. There exists a middle ground in which you do not have full rights to your data generated while using SaaS products, but neither does the company who makes the SaaS product. This is why Terms of Use and Privacy Policy documents exist: to outline what rights the company wants to your data. If you don't agree to them, don't use the product. If you cannot find a product that does what you want and has a data ownership model you agree with, and you think many other people agree with you, then you have identified a market for a product. If you are unwilling or unable to build said product, perhaps your demands are unreasonable? I find it to be a childish argument to demand full control and ownership over all your data, including usage data. Like I pointed out in my original post, most people who want to control all of their data do nothing with it. They willfully destroy valuable information rather than share it with those who could use it. Sure, you might not like what they're using it for, at which point I'd be willing to agree that's a reasonable stance to take. Clearly not all data should be shared with all people. But this thread is about Figma wanting to collect data to train an AI so they can improve their product and make it easier to use. Why would you use Figma, but disagree that they should improve said product? I would find it hard to believe that you don't actually want the product to improve, which essentially boils the argument down to "I want you to make the product better, but I don't want to help you do it in any way. I don't want you to look at how I use the product to find out how it could be improved, either." That just seems wildly self-centered and antisocial.

rented_mule 2y ago

Saying Google has the same rights (including publication, etc.) as you do to your book written in Google Docs is certainly over the line. I can't speak for the grandparent, but I have to assume they didn't have this extreme in mind when writing their comment. The far more interesting question is, "Where is the line?" Is it okay for Google Docs to store your documents on Google's drives? If you want that product to exist, then it better be okay! What if Google analyzes font usage in all docs? No docs out of millions have ever used SillyFont, so they decide to remove SillyFont from the default list to declutter the interface. I don't think that's over the line. How about detecting that everyone is ignoring/undoing the spelling correction of a specific word and using that to realize they have a misspelling in their dictionary? I'd like that. How about noticing that your documents all use British spellings rather than American spellings (e.g., "colour" rather than "color"), so they adapt spell checking and autocompletion? Is that over the line? How about using everyone's text and location to build an ML classifier to determine that "go on holiday" is British and "go on a vacation" is American and using that to adapt autocompletion? What if 99% of all occurrences of the phrase "It was a dark and" end with "stormy night", so they autocomplete that? If you're writing your new book in Google Docs and I type the first five words, should it autocomplete the rest of your book for me? I think it's easy to agree this is over the line. Where is the line? I suspect we won't all agree. Is it possible to come up with somewhat standardized concepts and language around this, so that vendors can publish data usage policies that let consumers make informed decisions?

jononor 2y ago
Informed and voluntary consent is the line. If Google wants to use my data for something - just ask, and let me decide. The companies right now are deliberately not asking, because they are afraid that not enough people are going to accept their proposition.
- try_the_bass 2y ago
  Making something opt-out is not synonymous with "not asking", especially if a) the option is presented at the time you begin to use the product (or feature, in this case!); or b) it's clearly communicated that it's being set as opt-in by default and you have a clear path to opt-out before the changes take effect. They're simply putting the burden on you to make that decision. To me, this is fair: in all likelihood, if this were an opt-in choice, Figma would receive a dismal opt-in rate. There's a huge gap between "folks who would opt in, given the choice" and "folks who would opt out, given the choice", filled with "folks who don't really care either way". The folks who don't care (and a good chunk of those who would opt out) are likely people who would never use that data themselves, so it's simply going to waste. Making it opt-out captures the most useful information for Figma, while still providing the folks who care about their "privacy" the option to not contribute their data (while still benefitting from those who do!). In all honesty, choosing to opt out of this specific data agreement comes across as the desire to freeload: folks who are opting out are choosing to not contribute to the training of the AI features they're opting in to using (remember, these are features you have to opt in to a waitlist to eventually use), while still wanting to use those same features. Under that lens, I wouldn't have a problem with Figma requiring people to share their data in order to use the AI features while they're under development (i.e. during the waitlist period). Afterwards, I can see it being an opt-in or opt-out thing--but during development of the AI features that would be trained on this data, it seems most fair to say that if you want the AI features early, you should have to contribute your own data in order to use them. That seems like a fair and equitable trade, to me?