3 ms·

The picture at the end showing deepseek's privacy policy and being concerned that it's "a security risk" is hilarious[1]. Basically every B2C company collects t

by gruez 2y ago

The picture at the end showing deepseek's privacy policy and being concerned that it's "a security risk" is hilarious[1]. Basically every B2C company collects this sort of information[2], and is far less intrusive than what social networks collect[3]. But because it's Chinese and at the risk of overtaking Western companies, people are suddenly worried about device information and IP addresses? [1] https://semking.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/DeepSeek-1024x642-png.avif https://semking.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/DeepSeek-1024... [2] https://www.bestbuy.com/site/help-topics/privacy-policy/pcmcat204400050062.c?id=pcmcat204400050062 https://www.bestbuy.com/site/help-topics/privacy-policy/pcmc... [3] https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy/ https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy/

semking 2y ago
One of my core followers named Bruno basically said the same thing under my Linkedin post yesterday: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/organic-growth_deepseek-the-only-takeaway-is-that-open-source-activity-7290017080458846208-hCyn https://www.linkedin.com/posts/organic-growth_deepseek-the-o... I welcome friction, so I'll be blunt: I disagree with you, not because what you are saying is wrong but because you only consider systematic data collection. That's not the issue here. There's a difference between democracies like the United States or European countries, no matter how IMPERFECT they are, and a dictatorship that does not allow dissenting opinions. There's a difference in how the data collected will be used. Freedom of speech, even when it is relative, is better than totalitarianism.
- ryanobjc 2y ago
  It’s also important to recognize that the Chinese government is known to walk into internet service companies and demand they censor, alter data, delete things. No court order or search warrant required. China considers industry to be completely subservient to government. Checks and balances are secondary to ideas like harmony and collective well being.
  - semking 2y ago
    Thank you for this balanced and essential comment which is entirely true!
- gruez 2y ago
  >There's a difference between democracies like the United States or European countries, no matter how IMPERFECT they are, and a dictatorship that does not allow dissenting opinions. >There's a difference in how the data collected will be used. >Freedom of speech, even when it is relative, is better than totalitarianism. I don't disagree with "democracy is better than totalitarianism", but what does that have to do with collecting device information and IP addresses? Is that excuse a cudgel you can use against any behavior that would otherwise be innocuous? It's fine to be against deepseek because you're concerned about them getting sensitive data via queries, or even that their models be a backdoor to project chinese soft power, but hand wringing about device information and IP addresses is absurd. It makes as much sense as being concerned that the CCP/deepseek does meetings, because even though every other companies does meetings, CCP/deepseek meetings could be used for totalitarianism.
  - semking 2y ago
    I don't disagree with you either and like you, I'm entirely against privacy violations in any way, shape or form. I admit I am concerned when I see blatant algorithmic manipulation of social platforms to favor any narrative that aligns with geopolitical objectives. I also wrote about the TikTok algo a few days ago. You'll see what I think of user privacy violations (closed ecosystem + basically a keylogger in this case): https://semking.com/likes-lies-untold-story-tiktok-algorithm/ https://semking.com/likes-lies-untold-story-tiktok-algorithm... I cannot stand when dissenting voices or opinions are shadow-banned. And I have the same opinion regarding U.S. or EU companies. Our privacy should be respected. In the meantime: strong encryption at every corner, please!
    - pphysch 2y ago
      > I admit I am concerned when I see blatant algorithmic manipulation of social platforms to favor any narrative that aligns with geopolitical objectives. I'm curious how robust this principle is for you, because China and Russia are not the first countries that come to mind when talking about the (actual, existing, documented) manipulation of US speech and media by a foreign government. Yet it seems we can only have this discussion, ironically, when the subject is a US government-approved one like China. Anything else would be problematic and unsafe.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >There's a difference in how the data collected will be used. Not that we could ever see what the NSA, CISA, ASIS, GCHQ, and other 3/4-letter agencies are actually doing with the collected data. But they pinky promised to use it properly (or something), so, yay.
- r00fus 2y ago
  Amusing Bruno seems to think in terms of labels when the reality is that the USA imprisons far more people per capita, and blatantly disregards its so-called "core freedoms" (ie, Bill of Rights) for its citizens very often. This kind of person has a lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

by gruez 2y ago

semking 2y ago

One of my core followers named Bruno basically said the same thing under my Linkedin post yesterday: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/organic-growth_deepseek-the-only-takeaway-is-that-open-source-activity-7290017080458846208-hCyn https://www.linkedin.com/posts/organic-growth_deepseek-the-o... I welcome friction, so I'll be blunt: I disagree with you, not because what you are saying is wrong but because you only consider systematic data collection. That's not the issue here. There's a difference between democracies like the United States or European countries, no matter how IMPERFECT they are, and a dictatorship that does not allow dissenting opinions. There's a difference in how the data collected will be used. Freedom of speech, even when it is relative, is better than totalitarianism.

ryanobjc 2y ago
It’s also important to recognize that the Chinese government is known to walk into internet service companies and demand they censor, alter data, delete things. No court order or search warrant required. China considers industry to be completely subservient to government. Checks and balances are secondary to ideas like harmony and collective well being.
- semking 2y ago
  Thank you for this balanced and essential comment which is entirely true!
gruez 2y ago
>There's a difference between democracies like the United States or European countries, no matter how IMPERFECT they are, and a dictatorship that does not allow dissenting opinions. >There's a difference in how the data collected will be used. >Freedom of speech, even when it is relative, is better than totalitarianism. I don't disagree with "democracy is better than totalitarianism", but what does that have to do with collecting device information and IP addresses? Is that excuse a cudgel you can use against any behavior that would otherwise be innocuous? It's fine to be against deepseek because you're concerned about them getting sensitive data via queries, or even that their models be a backdoor to project chinese soft power, but hand wringing about device information and IP addresses is absurd. It makes as much sense as being concerned that the CCP/deepseek does meetings, because even though every other companies does meetings, CCP/deepseek meetings could be used for totalitarianism.
- semking 2y ago
  I don't disagree with you either and like you, I'm entirely against privacy violations in any way, shape or form. I admit I am concerned when I see blatant algorithmic manipulation of social platforms to favor any narrative that aligns with geopolitical objectives. I also wrote about the TikTok algo a few days ago. You'll see what I think of user privacy violations (closed ecosystem + basically a keylogger in this case): https://semking.com/likes-lies-untold-story-tiktok-algorithm/ https://semking.com/likes-lies-untold-story-tiktok-algorithm... I cannot stand when dissenting voices or opinions are shadow-banned. And I have the same opinion regarding U.S. or EU companies. Our privacy should be respected. In the meantime: strong encryption at every corner, please!
  - pphysch 2y ago
    > I admit I am concerned when I see blatant algorithmic manipulation of social platforms to favor any narrative that aligns with geopolitical objectives. I'm curious how robust this principle is for you, because China and Russia are not the first countries that come to mind when talking about the (actual, existing, documented) manipulation of US speech and media by a foreign government. Yet it seems we can only have this discussion, ironically, when the subject is a US government-approved one like China. Anything else would be problematic and unsafe.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ziddoap 2y ago
>There's a difference in how the data collected will be used. Not that we could ever see what the NSA, CISA, ASIS, GCHQ, and other 3/4-letter agencies are actually doing with the collected data. But they pinky promised to use it properly (or something), so, yay.
r00fus 2y ago
Amusing Bruno seems to think in terms of labels when the reality is that the USA imprisons far more people per capita, and blatantly disregards its so-called "core freedoms" (ie, Bill of Rights) for its citizens very often. This kind of person has a lot of cognitive dissonance going on.