For the past 24 hours, I’ve been arguing with somebody who insists AI should be given our political, religious, and brand biases in order to tailor a search engine that will only show us results we are comfortable with.
In a privacy community.
Things are going to get dumber before they get better.
Oh look what I stumbled upon, a blatant lie. It is a habit misreprenting other people’s opinion to get virtual internet points, I see. Dude, there is not even karma here…
Nobody claimed that you “should” do anything. However, you don’t understand the concept of privacy and how it relates to one’s agency, so maybe read up before crying about things getting dumber.
Nobody attacked your sovereignty. I take issue with your attempts to seduce other people into using a product from a corporation that wants to harvest incredibly valuable private data.
You still completely misrepresent my opinion.
Let’s also remember that the product you base your whole argument on ATM doesn’t harvest any data, and doesn’t intend to do so in the foreseeable future.
You:
a corporation that wants to harvest incredibly valuable private data.
we don’t need to do any tracking so I don’t have an opinion. I don’t know why you would track users.
Your who argument is based on a product that does not exist yet, and if it existed it could 100% exist in a privacy respecting way depending on who design the technology and what incentive they have (what if I could run it locally? What if I could selfhost? Etc.).
So I take issue with first of all your dishonest way to represent my opinion and slander my own reputation especially since I care and invest a lot into the privacy. I also take issue with the fact that you are somehow basing your whole criticism on your own interpretation of a sentence in a manifesto while ignoring all data points that contradict your view.
You called “a VC funded” company a company which is (according to them, maybe you have better sources) owned for 98% by employees, for example.
So yeah, I take issue with your gross lack of care for the reality and for facts.
Basically at this point you are a tinfoil hat level conspirationist who is purposefully twisting my opinion to make seem your position reasonable. I would never user a product that ‘harvests’ my data to make a bubble around me, for example, and you asked this in your last comment in the conversation, in which I answered directly, and yet you completely misrepresented my opinion as “suggests that we should give data”, which is completely false.
And if I care it’s because I can’t wait for more companies to adopt business models that do not require them to fuck users over for their data, and can afford to have privacy as one of the core value. If companies that do this succeed, we have hope that more will do the same.
So ultimately I don’t give a fuck about the trend that you think you are seeing within the privacy world. This doesn’t give you any right to take my opinion, twisting it and misrepresenting it so that you can feel like your statistics or perception is right.
“I don’t care about my privacy” but the argument is “you shouldn’t care about your privacy, either.”
This is not an argument I believe, it’s not an argument I made nor support. So why would I care?
You want to know what I believe?
I believe that privacy means that people can choose to give pieces of their data, whichever they want, whenever they want. If that data is used only for purposes they agree with and for nothing else, and if they understand fully the implications, and if that data is not given, sold, or accessed by other parties which were not intended, then this is a privacy respecting service.
Compare it with the very same screenshot in this thread: you want to use this service? You need to give data to us to train AI. I say, fuck this. The lack of agency and the fact that the data is given for the benefit of the company exclusively makes it completely different.
I can’t be clearer than this, so if you fail to acknowledge the fact that you grossly misrepresented my opinion, I need to conclude that you are discussing purely in bad faith.
P.s.
I am now blocking you. I have no interest to discuss further with someone whose ego is bigger than their intellectual honesty. You seem to care more about being the white knight than about understanding. Everything that had to be said has been said, and anybody who wants to make a proper opinion can check our history and read what was actually said.
If the AI software is on-premises/offline or completely turned off by default. Anything else is espionage.
Ideally, consider using open-source software if possible to avoid potential bait-and-switches. But understandably, this is not always a practical option.
At work, this is actually very useful thing.
Useful for exposing PII, sure
For the past 24 hours, I’ve been arguing with somebody who insists AI should be given our political, religious, and brand biases in order to tailor a search engine that will only show us results we are comfortable with.
In a privacy community.
Things are going to get dumber before they get better.
I admire your
optionoptimism about it ever getting better.Are we sure that things won’t keep getting dumber before we all get used to it?
It’s a win-win… If I’m wrong, nobody will be smart enough to remember. 😉
Oh look what I stumbled upon, a blatant lie. It is a habit misreprenting other people’s opinion to get virtual internet points, I see. Dude, there is not even karma here…
Nobody claimed that you “should” do anything. However, you don’t understand the concept of privacy and how it relates to one’s agency, so maybe read up before crying about things getting dumber.
Nobody attacked your sovereignty. I take issue with your attempts to seduce other people into using a product from a corporation that wants to harvest incredibly valuable private data.
You aren’t unique.
The privacy community recently clowned on a similar piece of propaganda, that says “I don’t care about my privacy” but the argument is “you shouldn’t care about your privacy, either.”
You still completely misrepresent my opinion. Let’s also remember that the product you base your whole argument on ATM doesn’t harvest any data, and doesn’t intend to do so in the foreseeable future.
You:
Them: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DRVY-74lkBA&pp=ygUUa2FnaSBjb21tdW5pdHkgZXZlbnQ%3D
Minute 50:30
I quote:
Your who argument is based on a product that does not exist yet, and if it existed it could 100% exist in a privacy respecting way depending on who design the technology and what incentive they have (what if I could run it locally? What if I could selfhost? Etc.).
So I take issue with first of all your dishonest way to represent my opinion and slander my own reputation especially since I care and invest a lot into the privacy. I also take issue with the fact that you are somehow basing your whole criticism on your own interpretation of a sentence in a manifesto while ignoring all data points that contradict your view.
You called “a VC funded” company a company which is (according to them, maybe you have better sources) owned for 98% by employees, for example.
So yeah, I take issue with your gross lack of care for the reality and for facts. Basically at this point you are a tinfoil hat level conspirationist who is purposefully twisting my opinion to make seem your position reasonable. I would never user a product that ‘harvests’ my data to make a bubble around me, for example, and you asked this in your last comment in the conversation, in which I answered directly, and yet you completely misrepresented my opinion as “suggests that we should give data”, which is completely false.
And if I care it’s because I can’t wait for more companies to adopt business models that do not require them to fuck users over for their data, and can afford to have privacy as one of the core value. If companies that do this succeed, we have hope that more will do the same.
So ultimately I don’t give a fuck about the trend that you think you are seeing within the privacy world. This doesn’t give you any right to take my opinion, twisting it and misrepresenting it so that you can feel like your statistics or perception is right.
This is not an argument I believe, it’s not an argument I made nor support. So why would I care?
You want to know what I believe? I believe that privacy means that people can choose to give pieces of their data, whichever they want, whenever they want. If that data is used only for purposes they agree with and for nothing else, and if they understand fully the implications, and if that data is not given, sold, or accessed by other parties which were not intended, then this is a privacy respecting service.
Compare it with the very same screenshot in this thread: you want to use this service? You need to give data to us to train AI. I say, fuck this. The lack of agency and the fact that the data is given for the benefit of the company exclusively makes it completely different.
I can’t be clearer than this, so if you fail to acknowledge the fact that you grossly misrepresented my opinion, I need to conclude that you are discussing purely in bad faith.
P.s. I am now blocking you. I have no interest to discuss further with someone whose ego is bigger than their intellectual honesty. You seem to care more about being the white knight than about understanding. Everything that had to be said has been said, and anybody who wants to make a proper opinion can check our history and read what was actually said.
Holy shit lol
Yeah, at this time I think you should rise a white flag.
If the AI software is on-premises/offline or completely turned off by default. Anything else is espionage.
Ideally, consider using open-source software if possible to avoid potential bait-and-switches. But understandably, this is not always a practical option.
I will let our IT/legal/cyber security department deal with that.