Re:Project Tango
by wwweston on Thursday February 20, 2014 @11:32PM
(#7275462)
> Good god I am so sick of reading comments like this.
I suppose your comment has, if nothing else, the virtue of being relatively novel compared against either the comments of those unaware of the privacy implications of much modern technology or those concerned by them. People who are largely aware and untroubled do seem to be in the minority.
> This view of the world is just lazy. Almost as lazy as "remember, if you're using a service for free, you're not the customer, YOU'RE THE PRODUCT!", which seems to get parroted every single time there is any discussion related to google, facebook, microsoft, instagram, twitter, or any other web company that uses ads as a revenue model.
It appears to be, if not 100% correct, a generally good heuristic, and a way of pointing out to people that the costs of participating in nominally free services are often hidden. Perhaps you could explain how this is lazy.
> If you don't like these services, don't use them / If you don't like modernity, stop using modernity.
Whew! Simple binary options. It's all clear now, and anybody who's thinking about this can safely choose one without worrying any further (or being accused of being... lazy, right?).
Or maybe some of us "lazy" people would like to explore the possibility of having a world where we can have the benefits of the technologies and minimize the problems.
> Have you, or any of the other people on HN who repeat this ad nauseum, ever considered the possibility that the people running google are actually just hackers who got lucky enough to have the resources to pursue projects that they think are cool?
I suspect many of them are. My acquaintances who work there seem to be.
But perhaps you are familiar with the aphorism "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" (though perhaps this is something else you consider "lazy"). It doesn't matter what motivated those who pursued a thorough knowledge and practice of various nuclear fission techniques, the fact is that they have various drawbacks (some pretty serious) that aren't a matter of individual opt-in / opt-out. This is true of technologies that extend legibility of personal spaces and activities.
> If you don't like modernity, stop using modernity. Move to a homestead in the pacific northwest, never use a telephone, never use grid power, grow your own vegetables, grow your own cattle, and keep away from the evil, scary spies at gooooogggllleeee
I think I've seen this suggestion before, but less in earnest:
I suppose your comment has, if nothing else, the virtue of being relatively novel compared against either the comments of those unaware of the privacy implications of much modern technology or those concerned by them. People who are largely aware and untroubled do seem to be in the minority.
> This view of the world is just lazy. Almost as lazy as "remember, if you're using a service for free, you're not the customer, YOU'RE THE PRODUCT!", which seems to get parroted every single time there is any discussion related to google, facebook, microsoft, instagram, twitter, or any other web company that uses ads as a revenue model.
It appears to be, if not 100% correct, a generally good heuristic, and a way of pointing out to people that the costs of participating in nominally free services are often hidden. Perhaps you could explain how this is lazy.
> If you don't like these services, don't use them / If you don't like modernity, stop using modernity.
Whew! Simple binary options. It's all clear now, and anybody who's thinking about this can safely choose one without worrying any further (or being accused of being... lazy, right?).
Or maybe some of us "lazy" people would like to explore the possibility of having a world where we can have the benefits of the technologies and minimize the problems.
> Have you, or any of the other people on HN who repeat this ad nauseum, ever considered the possibility that the people running google are actually just hackers who got lucky enough to have the resources to pursue projects that they think are cool?
I suspect many of them are. My acquaintances who work there seem to be.
But perhaps you are familiar with the aphorism "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" (though perhaps this is something else you consider "lazy"). It doesn't matter what motivated those who pursued a thorough knowledge and practice of various nuclear fission techniques, the fact is that they have various drawbacks (some pretty serious) that aren't a matter of individual opt-in / opt-out. This is true of technologies that extend legibility of personal spaces and activities.
> If you don't like modernity, stop using modernity. Move to a homestead in the pacific northwest, never use a telephone, never use grid power, grow your own vegetables, grow your own cattle, and keep away from the evil, scary spies at gooooogggllleeee
I think I've seen this suggestion before, but less in earnest:
http://www.theonion.com/video/google-opt-out-feature-lets-us...