4 ms·

Not enabling something by default is pretty close to not having it at all. Accessibility is a reasonable exception where it makes sense to have the features eve

Not enabling something by default is pretty close to not having it at all. Accessibility is a reasonable exception where it makes sense to have the features even though they are off by default. I mostly think the reaction to this article is overblown because it appeals popular ideas here about big tech. I think one should be wary of Apple’s claims about privacy: the reason is competition with Google and so they want users to be distrustful of the kinds of features that Google are better at implementing (I don’t want to say Apple isn’t trying to do the right thing either – if you look at accessibility, the competition was very bad for a lot of things for a long time and Apple was good despite the lack of commercial pressure). But I think one should also be wary of articles that make you angry and tell you what you suspected all along. (eg see the commenter elsewhere who doesn’t care about the details and is just angry). It’s much easier to spot this kind of rage-bait piece when it is targeting ‘normal people’ rather than the in-group.

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
> Not enabling something by default is pretty close to not having it at all And I care "why" exactly? It was turned on by default on my phone without my consent, it's a privacy violation, nothing else matters in that case.
- dan-robertson 2y ago
  In the comment you are replying to, I’m trying to explain some of the reasons for the world being the way it is. I’m not trying to convince you to be happy about it.
lapcat 2y ago
> But I think one should also be wary of articles that make you angry and tell you what you suspected all along. (eg see the commenter elsewhere who doesn’t care about the details and is just angry). It’s much easier to spot this kind of rage-bait piece when it is targeting ‘normal people’ rather than the in-group. The article was published by an Apple developer and user, i.e., myself, on my personal blog, which is followed mainly by other Apple developers and users. My blog comprises my own personal observations, insights, and opinions. If you see any rage, it would be my own personal rage, and not "bait". Bait for what?
- dan-robertson 2y ago
  I’m not interested in telling you what to put on your blog. Do whatever you like. The headline is defensible but, in my opinion, quite sensationalised. People are likely to interpret it as being for an article making much stronger claims than the article actually does. I think a lot of the interactions people had with this submission, especially early on, were because the headline made them mad, rather than because of its contents. I think if one is interacting with some submission here due to a maddening headline, one should be wary about such interactions being driven by emotion, leading to poor discussion that is not particularly anchored to the topic of the article, rather than being driven by curiosity.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > The headline is defensible but, in my opinion, quite sensationalised. How would you write the headline? There's always a criticism of headlines, but headlines are necessarily short. It's like critics want the entire article text to appear in the headline, which is impossible. I don't know what defensible but sensationalized is supposed to mean. > I think a lot of the interactions people had with this submission, especially early on, were because the headline made them mad, rather than because of its contents. That's pure speculation on your part, because the headline is very short and vague. In any case, it's not my fault if people read the headline but not the article. I want people to read the article, not just the headline.
    - dan-robertson 2y ago
      I would probably aim for a title like ‘what does the “Enhanced Visual Search” feature do in iOS 18 and MacOS 15?’ Or ‘how much data is sent to Apple for the new “Enhanced Visual Search” in Photos’. I think the early comments on this submission were because the headline made them mad because they were incurious and not particularly related to the topic of the article making – most could be under any article about Apple Photos. One early comment was about switching to alternatives to Photos and another was, paraphrasing, ‘I’m so angry. I don’t care about homeomorphic encryption or differential privacy’. Others seemed to follow the theme of the latter. After a while a comment attempted an overview of some of the technical details, which I thought was better. Perhaps a more precise complaint is that many of the early comments didn’t really depend on the contents of the article – they could go under many Apple submissions – and I think it’s more likely for comments like that to be written while incensed. I don’t think you’re to blame for the comments people choose to leave.

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago

> Not enabling something by default is pretty close to not having it at all And I care "why" exactly? It was turned on by default on my phone without my consent, it's a privacy violation, nothing else matters in that case.

dan-robertson 2y ago
In the comment you are replying to, I’m trying to explain some of the reasons for the world being the way it is. I’m not trying to convince you to be happy about it.

lapcat 2y ago

> But I think one should also be wary of articles that make you angry and tell you what you suspected all along. (eg see the commenter elsewhere who doesn’t care about the details and is just angry). It’s much easier to spot this kind of rage-bait piece when it is targeting ‘normal people’ rather than the in-group. The article was published by an Apple developer and user, i.e., myself, on my personal blog, which is followed mainly by other Apple developers and users. My blog comprises my own personal observations, insights, and opinions. If you see any rage, it would be my own personal rage, and not "bait". Bait for what?

dan-robertson 2y ago
I’m not interested in telling you what to put on your blog. Do whatever you like. The headline is defensible but, in my opinion, quite sensationalised. People are likely to interpret it as being for an article making much stronger claims than the article actually does. I think a lot of the interactions people had with this submission, especially early on, were because the headline made them mad, rather than because of its contents. I think if one is interacting with some submission here due to a maddening headline, one should be wary about such interactions being driven by emotion, leading to poor discussion that is not particularly anchored to the topic of the article, rather than being driven by curiosity.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > The headline is defensible but, in my opinion, quite sensationalised. How would you write the headline? There's always a criticism of headlines, but headlines are necessarily short. It's like critics want the entire article text to appear in the headline, which is impossible. I don't know what defensible but sensationalized is supposed to mean. > I think a lot of the interactions people had with this submission, especially early on, were because the headline made them mad, rather than because of its contents. That's pure speculation on your part, because the headline is very short and vague. In any case, it's not my fault if people read the headline but not the article. I want people to read the article, not just the headline.
  - dan-robertson 2y ago
    I would probably aim for a title like ‘what does the “Enhanced Visual Search” feature do in iOS 18 and MacOS 15?’ Or ‘how much data is sent to Apple for the new “Enhanced Visual Search” in Photos’. I think the early comments on this submission were because the headline made them mad because they were incurious and not particularly related to the topic of the article making – most could be under any article about Apple Photos. One early comment was about switching to alternatives to Photos and another was, paraphrasing, ‘I’m so angry. I don’t care about homeomorphic encryption or differential privacy’. Others seemed to follow the theme of the latter. After a while a comment attempted an overview of some of the technical details, which I thought was better. Perhaps a more precise complaint is that many of the early comments didn’t really depend on the contents of the article – they could go under many Apple submissions – and I think it’s more likely for comments like that to be written while incensed. I don’t think you’re to blame for the comments people choose to leave.