4 ms·

that's funny; because my root cause analysis didn't show the user as the person making the decision to show themselves ads? did yours, or was the victim blaming

that's funny; because my root cause analysis didn't show the user as the person making the decision to show themselves ads? did yours, or was the victim blaming intentional?

k33n 3mo ago
The word “victim” is honestly pretty funny in this context. Nothing really happened to anyone.
- gkbrk 3mo ago
  I wouldn't classify getting random malware as "nothing happening".
  - frollogaston 3mo ago
    Because it spies on them and nags. But Windows itself already does that. LG could've done the same thing sans the mcafee popups and nobody would care, in fact Dell is probably doing that.
    - ssl-3 3mo ago
      > But Windows itself already does that. So once an person is victimized in this way, it becomes a free-for-all where future transgressions cease to matter?
      - frollogaston 3mo ago
        Yep. Not free-for-all, but silently installed crap collecting metrics is well within their expectations.
        ssl-3 3mo ago
        So... When people expect to be harmed because they've been harmed before, then it's perfectly OK when they get harmed again. Neato.
        deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
        grayhatter 3mo ago
        > Yep. Not free-for-all, but silently installed crap collecting metrics is well within their expectations. I don't expect software engineers to build stuff like this. I expect humans to treat other humans with dignity and respect. In fact, it makes me extremely angry when I see people do it, or advocate that others should tolerate it.
        frollogaston 2mo ago
        I don't think they should tolerate it, but they do. 0 people are going to leave Windows because of this latest scandal, because the ones who care have already left. At some point I accepted that this doesn't matter to a lot of people, which is their right and choice, and if Linux wants to attract users, it has to do it by being easier to use besides just being more ethical.
zajio1am 3mo ago
Not making the specific decision (showing ads) but making the general decision (giving power to Microsoft). Blaming customers for buying MS products is not really much different than blaming Trump voters for voting for him. In both cases risks were obvious beforehand.
- grayhatter 3mo ago
  > In both cases risks were obvious beforehand. Not everyone is able to accurately predict the future from past patterns. They still deserve dignity and respect. Just because you were able to predict it easily doesn't make it possible for everyone. The solution I'd like is instead of you making excuses for shitty behavior, instead maybe condemn the shitty behavior? You're allowed to say both, you can said I told you so, (to switching to not windows) while also being bothered when you see SWE at some company mistreat other people. You can complain about LG being abusive with the power they were given, while also offering alternative OS install instructions to that grandma who only wants to VC with her grandkids without being tricked into paying for trash-tier antivirus she doesn't need.

that's funny; because my root cause analysis didn't show the user as the person making the decision to show themselves ads? did yours, or was the victim blaming intentional?

k33n 3mo ago

The word “victim” is honestly pretty funny in this context. Nothing really happened to anyone.

gkbrk 3mo ago
I wouldn't classify getting random malware as "nothing happening".
- frollogaston 3mo ago
  Because it spies on them and nags. But Windows itself already does that. LG could've done the same thing sans the mcafee popups and nobody would care, in fact Dell is probably doing that.
  - ssl-3 3mo ago
    > But Windows itself already does that. So once an person is victimized in this way, it becomes a free-for-all where future transgressions cease to matter?
    - frollogaston 3mo ago
      Yep. Not free-for-all, but silently installed crap collecting metrics is well within their expectations.
      - ssl-3 3mo ago
        So... When people expect to be harmed because they've been harmed before, then it's perfectly OK when they get harmed again. Neato.
        deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
      - grayhatter 3mo ago
        > Yep. Not free-for-all, but silently installed crap collecting metrics is well within their expectations. I don't expect software engineers to build stuff like this. I expect humans to treat other humans with dignity and respect. In fact, it makes me extremely angry when I see people do it, or advocate that others should tolerate it.
        frollogaston 2mo ago
        I don't think they should tolerate it, but they do. 0 people are going to leave Windows because of this latest scandal, because the ones who care have already left. At some point I accepted that this doesn't matter to a lot of people, which is their right and choice, and if Linux wants to attract users, it has to do it by being easier to use besides just being more ethical.

zajio1am 3mo ago

Not making the specific decision (showing ads) but making the general decision (giving power to Microsoft). Blaming customers for buying MS products is not really much different than blaming Trump voters for voting for him. In both cases risks were obvious beforehand.

grayhatter 3mo ago
> In both cases risks were obvious beforehand. Not everyone is able to accurately predict the future from past patterns. They still deserve dignity and respect. Just because you were able to predict it easily doesn't make it possible for everyone. The solution I'd like is instead of you making excuses for shitty behavior, instead maybe condemn the shitty behavior? You're allowed to say both, you can said I told you so, (to switching to not windows) while also being bothered when you see SWE at some company mistreat other people. You can complain about LG being abusive with the power they were given, while also offering alternative OS install instructions to that grandma who only wants to VC with her grandkids without being tricked into paying for trash-tier antivirus she doesn't need.