Well, if you take of the programmer's literal-minded hat for a second, this is probably representative of how the author feels: that she lied to her grandma. It might be incorrect but to dismiss her feelings of guilt like that is missing the point.
I don't doubt that the company's fine print attempts to disclaim all responsibility for whatever errors they make in their calls, no matter how glaring; I'm quite confident that 23andMe could claim someone's ancestry is 97% derived from thoroughbred horses, and if pressed on the obviously nonsense result, they'd refer to their legal boilerplate and claim that the fault lay with whoever was credulous and foolish enough to presume they provide a product of merchantable quality in exchange for the fee that they charge.
What I don't see is why anyone needs to take them seriously in the attempt. And, as other commenters have pointed out, when we have companies in the same industry attempting to market genetic analysis for purposes from skin care to law enforcement, it's very much worth pausing for a moment, just to make sure that we aren't at risk of accidentally reinventing the justly discredited pseudoscience of eugenics, a century down the line.
Only if you think the point of the article is feelings and not the dissemination of information. This is not a personal blog about relationships, its about the science of genetics. Drawing a distinction between the two is important and blurring the line furthers the spread of bad science.
In re the "probably total junk" comment, that's in reference to this: "companies are popping up every day, promising to use your DNA for everything from figuring out what wine or marijuana varietals your genetics predispose you to, to what skin care regimen is best for you". And the quote is spot on. There may be research pointing vaguely in those directions, but the reality is far more complex. And the chances that the actual science will appropriately inform the recommendations give to you by startup companies built around trying to make money off telling you "facts" like these based on your genome, it will absolutely and without question translate to "junk". Even if they could make correct predictions, there would be so much more money in bending the truth just a bit to satisfy advertisers and affiliates, that the end result would be junk, not science.
The notion of genetic ancestry is inherently fuzzy. What does the author think it means to be "Italian"? Humans didn't evolve in Italy, nobody is "from" there in a truly genetic sense.
On the other hand, some of the health information 23andme provides is significant and behavior-changing. I don't mean the "you have 5% higher risk of developing hangnails" trivia. I mean the "60% of people with your genetic factors develop deep vein thrombosis" warning - which a person I know found out, and immediately stopped taking hormonal birth control.
For me it was "no news is good news", but that's valuable information too. I consider 23andme a good service.
Greeks
Carthaginians
Romans
Germans/Franks/Vandals
Bizantines
Arabs
French (Normans)
Germans
French again (Angevins)
Spaniards (Aragonese first and later unified Spain)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sicily
Even Vikings (briefly) ruled it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sicily#Viking_Age
So - from a DNA analysis - you can probably find traces in the population of practically every "race" that existed in the basin of the Mediterranean sea (including Europe, Africa and the middle East) and even part of northern Europe.
Some of them did; some of them didn't. When did humans stop evolving?
> But it was too late to tell my grandma. She’s dead now and I’m a liar.
The personal story is over the top and this is not the definition of a liar.
>“The science across all that is probably total junk,”
--Jennifer King, director of consumer privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society.
Why would you run a quote like that?
The writer in this article clearly has an agenda and the alarmist attitude taken isn't doing this issue justice.