• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    04 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      04 months 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        4 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          04 months 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.