4 ms·

> opt-in by default Nitpicking: “opt in by default” doesn’t exist, it’s either “opt in”, or “opt out”; this is “opt out”. By definition an “opt out” setting is

> opt-in by default Nitpicking: “opt in by default” doesn’t exist, it’s either “opt in”, or “opt out”; this is “opt out”. By definition an “opt out” setting is selected by default.

benterix 1y ago
This is not nitpicking, this is a sane reaction to someone modifying the meaning of words on the fly.
- klabb3 1y ago
  To be fair it trips people up all the time. Even precise terminology isn't great if people misuse it. Maybe it would have been better to just use "enabled by default".
- troad 1y ago
  The original meaning of sane is "physically healthy". Its usual modern meaning is "mentally healthy". You're using it to mean "reasonable". At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving, and why it super coincidentally the exact years you learnt it?
  - danans 1y ago
    > At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving Never? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
    - troad 1y ago
      Yes, that was my point.
      - card_zero 1y ago
        And here it is, evolving before your eyes: we're killing off the maladaptive mutant which was "opt-in by default". That's the evolution that is happening here.
        troad 1y ago
        That would not be evolution, that would be an attempt at creationism. There is no evolution police, and never will be.
        danparsonson 1y ago
        Selection pressure is the evolution police.
        card_zero 1y ago
        It would be fair to compare it to selective breeding, rather than natural selection. The flip side of rejecting usage is promoting neologisms. We can do both things deliberately, I see no rule saying that language is only allowed to evolve naturally. A reasonable criticism would be that trying to change it on purpose makes for a lot of unnecessary fuss, but we can be moderate about it.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    Diluting the distinction between opt-in and opt-out is gaslighting, not "evolution."
    - troad 1y ago
      That seems like an ungenerous and frankly somewhat hysterical take. By default, you are opted in. Perfectly clear. The purpose of language is communication, not validating your politics.
      - soraminazuki 1y ago
        > By default, you are opted in. Perfectly clear. That's called opt-out. You're doing exactly what I described: gaslighting people into believing that opt-in and opt-out are synonymous, rendering the entire concept meaningless. The audacity of you labeling people as "political" while resorting to such Orwellian manipulation is astounding. How can you lecture others about the purpose of languages with a straight face when you're redefining terms to make it impossible for people to express a concept? These are examples of what "opt-in by default" actually means. It means having the user manually consent to something every time, the polar opposite your definition. - https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/report-new-apple-intelligence-ai-features-will-be-opt-in-by-default/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/report-new-apple-int... - https://github.com/rom1504/img2dataset/issues/293 https://github.com/rom1504/img2dataset/issues/293 It's also just pure laziness to label me as "hysterical" when PR departments of companies like Google have, like you, misused the terms opt-out and opt-in in deceptive ways. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37314981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37314981
        Nevermark 1y ago
        I completely agree with you from a correctness standpoint, ... > Diluting the distinction between opt-in and opt-out is gaslighting > That seems like an ungenerous and frankly somewhat hysterical take. ... however, this comment was a reasonable response. Projective framing demonstrates your own lack of concern for accuracy, clarity or conviviality, that is 180 degrees at odds with the point you are making and the site you are making it on.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tln 1y ago
> By definition an “opt out” setting is selected by default. No, (IMO) an "opt out" setting / status is assumed/enabled without asking. So, I think this is opt-in, until Sept 28. Opt-in, whether pre-checked/pre-ticked or not, means the business asks you. GDPR requires "affirmative, opt-in consent", perhaps we use that term to mean an opt-in, not pre-ticked.
- whilenot-dev 1y ago
  Regardless whether it's opt-in or opt-out, the business will need to confirm anything it opted for you by asking. If you don't select the opposing choice in a timely fashion, then the business assumes that it opted correctly in your interest and on your behalf. > So, I think this is opt-in, until Sept 28. If the business opted for consent, then you will effectively have the choice for refusal, a.k.a. opt-out.

benterix 1y ago

This is not nitpicking, this is a sane reaction to someone modifying the meaning of words on the fly.

klabb3 1y ago
To be fair it trips people up all the time. Even precise terminology isn't great if people misuse it. Maybe it would have been better to just use "enabled by default".
troad 1y ago
The original meaning of sane is "physically healthy". Its usual modern meaning is "mentally healthy". You're using it to mean "reasonable". At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving, and why it super coincidentally the exact years you learnt it?
- danans 1y ago
  > At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving Never? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
  - troad 1y ago
    Yes, that was my point.
    - card_zero 1y ago
      And here it is, evolving before your eyes: we're killing off the maladaptive mutant which was "opt-in by default". That's the evolution that is happening here.
      - troad 1y ago
        That would not be evolution, that would be an attempt at creationism. There is no evolution police, and never will be.
        danparsonson 1y ago
        Selection pressure is the evolution police.
        card_zero 1y ago
        It would be fair to compare it to selective breeding, rather than natural selection. The flip side of rejecting usage is promoting neologisms. We can do both things deliberately, I see no rule saying that language is only allowed to evolve naturally. A reasonable criticism would be that trying to change it on purpose makes for a lot of unnecessary fuss, but we can be moderate about it.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  Diluting the distinction between opt-in and opt-out is gaslighting, not "evolution."
  - troad 1y ago
    That seems like an ungenerous and frankly somewhat hysterical take. By default, you are opted in. Perfectly clear. The purpose of language is communication, not validating your politics.
    - soraminazuki 1y ago
      > By default, you are opted in. Perfectly clear. That's called opt-out. You're doing exactly what I described: gaslighting people into believing that opt-in and opt-out are synonymous, rendering the entire concept meaningless. The audacity of you labeling people as "political" while resorting to such Orwellian manipulation is astounding. How can you lecture others about the purpose of languages with a straight face when you're redefining terms to make it impossible for people to express a concept? These are examples of what "opt-in by default" actually means. It means having the user manually consent to something every time, the polar opposite your definition. - https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/report-new-apple-intelligence-ai-features-will-be-opt-in-by-default/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/report-new-apple-int... - https://github.com/rom1504/img2dataset/issues/293 https://github.com/rom1504/img2dataset/issues/293 It's also just pure laziness to label me as "hysterical" when PR departments of companies like Google have, like you, misused the terms opt-out and opt-in in deceptive ways. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37314981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37314981
      - Nevermark 1y ago
        I completely agree with you from a correctness standpoint, ... > Diluting the distinction between opt-in and opt-out is gaslighting > That seems like an ungenerous and frankly somewhat hysterical take. ... however, this comment was a reasonable response. Projective framing demonstrates your own lack of concern for accuracy, clarity or conviviality, that is 180 degrees at odds with the point you are making and the site you are making it on.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

tln 1y ago

> By definition an “opt out” setting is selected by default. No, (IMO) an "opt out" setting / status is assumed/enabled without asking. So, I think this is opt-in, until Sept 28. Opt-in, whether pre-checked/pre-ticked or not, means the business asks you. GDPR requires "affirmative, opt-in consent", perhaps we use that term to mean an opt-in, not pre-ticked.

whilenot-dev 1y ago
Regardless whether it's opt-in or opt-out, the business will need to confirm anything it opted for you by asking. If you don't select the opposing choice in a timely fashion, then the business assumes that it opted correctly in your interest and on your behalf. > So, I think this is opt-in, until Sept 28. If the business opted for consent, then you will effectively have the choice for refusal, a.k.a. opt-out.