Comment by dan-robertson
1 month ago
Not enabling something by default is pretty close to not having it at all. Accessibility is a reasonable exception where it makes sense to have the features even though they are off by default.
I mostly think the reaction to this article is overblown because it appeals popular ideas here about big tech. I think one should be wary of Apple’s claims about privacy: the reason is competition with Google and so they want users to be distrustful of the kinds of features that Google are better at implementing (I don’t want to say Apple isn’t trying to do the right thing either – if you look at accessibility, the competition was very bad for a lot of things for a long time and Apple was good despite the lack of commercial pressure). But I think one should also be wary of articles that make you angry and tell you what you suspected all along. (eg see the commenter elsewhere who doesn’t care about the details and is just angry). It’s much easier to spot this kind of rage-bait piece when it is targeting ‘normal people’ rather than the in-group.
> But I think one should also be wary of articles that make you angry and tell you what you suspected all along. (eg see the commenter elsewhere who doesn’t care about the details and is just angry). It’s much easier to spot this kind of rage-bait piece when it is targeting ‘normal people’ rather than the in-group.
The article was published by an Apple developer and user, i.e., myself, on my personal blog, which is followed mainly by other Apple developers and users. My blog comprises my own personal observations, insights, and opinions. If you see any rage, it would be my own personal rage, and not "bait". Bait for what?
I’m not interested in telling you what to put on your blog. Do whatever you like.
The headline is defensible but, in my opinion, quite sensationalised. People are likely to interpret it as being for an article making much stronger claims than the article actually does. I think a lot of the interactions people had with this submission, especially early on, were because the headline made them mad, rather than because of its contents. I think if one is interacting with some submission here due to a maddening headline, one should be wary about such interactions being driven by emotion, leading to poor discussion that is not particularly anchored to the topic of the article, rather than being driven by curiosity.
> The headline is defensible but, in my opinion, quite sensationalised.
How would you write the headline?
There's always a criticism of headlines, but headlines are necessarily short. It's like critics want the entire article text to appear in the headline, which is impossible.
I don't know what defensible but sensationalized is supposed to mean.
> I think a lot of the interactions people had with this submission, especially early on, were because the headline made them mad, rather than because of its contents.
That's pure speculation on your part, because the headline is very short and vague. In any case, it's not my fault if people read the headline but not the article. I want people to read the article, not just the headline.
2 replies →
> Not enabling something by default is pretty close to not having it at all
And I care "why" exactly? It was turned on by default on my phone without my consent, it's a privacy violation, nothing else matters in that case.
In the comment you are replying to, I’m trying to explain some of the reasons for the world being the way it is. I’m not trying to convince you to be happy about it.