• Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It’s someone not willing to make any modest concessions in order to make the vast array of free content available viable to create. Modest concessions like your browser saying “here’s a small subset of topics the person might be interested in”. You’ve got to be pretty extremist to suggest that that’s privacy-invading.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        If the concession removes somebody’s privacy, it is a privacy invalidating concession. Your definition not mine

        Software running on my computer, should be my agent, representing my interests, and if I just want to display data transmitted over the network, and not send any data back, that should be within my explicit control. Not even talking about privacy, talking about agency.

        If open source software, written by a non-profit, wants to violate my agency with opt outs rather than explicit consensual opt-ins. At the very least it’s not respecting my privacy, and at worst it’s trying to lie to me, remove my agency from my own devices.

        You can say there’s a social contract, that people online have to feed the advertising machines, and I’m happy to debate you about that. There is utility there for sure, but saying you’re an extremist if you don’t want to participate is also an extreme position. And I don’t think it’s reasonable

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Topics is in your control. It’s all in your control. You can turn off specific topics you don’t want, or disable it entirely if you really want to. Browsers choosing not to implement it has nothing to do with agency, and appeals to that notion merely belie either ignorance or bad faith.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            You are poorly mannered debate partner. You have just said I am either ignorant or arguing in bad faith. You have denied me agency of my own opinions.

            I will no longer converse with you

            • Zagorath@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              Not ignorant in general, and I’m sorry if it came across that way.

              But ignorant about how Topics works, yes. To assert that Topics takes away agency can only be bad faith or ignorance.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Then why did Mozilla deploy this silently, with it enabled silently?

        If it’s so good for end users, wouldn’t they shout it from the rooftops?

        Further, Google, et al, created the battlefield by 2000, and now you’re sitting here blaming users for being suspicious of people who’ve repeatedly, over TWO DECADES, made it clear they have, at best, an antagonistic attitude towards web users.

        At this point, no, fuck them. I will block everything, at every turn. Just the same as I’ll never let the guy who stole half my CD collection back into my house.