Comment by owebmaster
6 days ago
No Eddy, this simpleton scenario of yours is not more likely to be true than the evil scenario where the evil tech company invades users privacy and collect data it wasn't directly allowed for an extra profit.
6 days ago
No Eddy, this simpleton scenario of yours is not more likely to be true than the evil scenario where the evil tech company invades users privacy and collect data it wasn't directly allowed for an extra profit.
I admit I haven’t been in any of the mustash twirling meetings. They probably happen, but I have also been in the room with engineers and PMs discussing solving problems with analytics attribution to user.
Given the structure of hierarchical orgs, both can (and likely are) true.
Moustache-twirler A: We've identified these metrics that correlate with increased shareholder value
Moustache-twirler B: But what do those metrics say about user privacy?
(both laugh. This is very funny)
MT A: no but really, fire any PMs that don't make these go up and let the survivors figure out why
MT B: sounds great. See you at golf this weekend
(some time later, in a less fancy conference room)
Engineer: This new feature is great, but could be construed as an invasion of privacy. Can we make it opt-in?
PM (panicking): Oh good heavens, no! Also send the opt-out button to the UX team, that way it doesn't come down on us.
It's probably more telling how you had to invent the cartoonishly evil MTA and MTB, a bootlicker PM, and an honest (but maybe just slightly clueless) engineer.
It is because when you get your attention fixed to the execution level you miss the strategic.