bennes
Jayneif you have to make your feature opt-out because people wouldn't opt-in then you shouldn't be making that feature
eepy cat@dotjayne happy to be on a team that shares this sentiment! The company at large... Can't win em all
Paul Hoffman
Pieter Lexis@paulehoffman it's a real shame the world/economy/internet has come to this
happyborg
xyhhx 🔻@dotjayne what a good rule of thumb
jonossa seuraava@dotjayne
Tell that to being born
Tell that to being born
Jez 🍞🌹
@dotjayne I really hate how the GDPR "legitimate interest" purpose has been hijacked into legitimising opt-out.
"We assert without evidence that it's in our legitimate interest to collect this data, but you can always object!"
Kim Spence-Jones 🇬🇧😷@dotjayne There are a few circumstances where opt-out is preferable — organ donation, for example. The criterion should be ‘ is it good for society as a whole?’
Rajnhildo Ursidino 
@KimSJ @dotjayne shouldn’t that be more “does the demonstrable benefit to society outweigh harm that might be done to the person”? in the case of organ donation after death, there is no person for there to be a cost to - the person has expired. there are cases where a benefit to society argument will be employed without a definite benefit to society
@reinhilde @dotjayne Agreed. The default should always be opt-in, and only opt-out when a clear and unequivocal case can be made.
draconicrose@KimSJ I honestly feel like that is one of the very few examples where opt-out is preferable. I also assume the OP was talking about tech exclusively.
Don Marti@KimSJ @dotjayne good point. If cross-context behavioral/surveillance/personalized advertising was really a good way to match buyers and sellers in a market, then by now it would been possible to show that people with privacy tools and/or settings are buying worse products and services ( https://blog.zgp.org/easy-experiment-behavioral-advertising/ ) But it looks like the effect goes in the opposite direction.
Instead of assuming a trade-off between market and privacy goals, better to see a win-win situation when it presents itself
Z̈oé@dotjayne yeah but what if Facebook pays?!
Ignas Kiela@dotjayne people just don't opt-in into features though
Like, fuck, let's stop making security updates for windows, because if windows didn't push them, way too little people would opt-in for it to matter.
99% stay on defaults. Tech tweakers that go through every knob is the minority.
Like, fuck, let's stop making security updates for windows, because if windows didn't push them, way too little people would opt-in for it to matter.
99% stay on defaults. Tech tweakers that go through every knob is the minority.
Fink 
Tanith the Gay
Eli the BeardedCounterpoint: vaccines
@elithebearded @dotjayne Organ donations. Germany has a problem w too few organ donations cause it's opt-in here (ya needa opt-in before ur death so't can be done after ur death).
Maurice@dotjayne also it shouldn't be called „feature“ then.
Draconic NEO@dotjayne I think that in terms of federation and Bridges it is preferable because people may not be aware. As well as the fact that posts and replies are public already.
For federated networks to work, interoperability and discovery of public posts is important.