I don't think you read my comment fully, the Furby thing was real, based on known facts, that were trumpeted by the manufacturer.
The idea the Furby was "[not] real" persisting after reading the comment, is probably why it seemed like I was saying the voice assistants don't record voice.
I read the comment and explained why I don't think it's the fear of the same thing. Maybe you didn't read my comment fully!
A Furby didn't have the capacity to meaningfully spy on you. You could be afraid that it actually does but it didn't. A voice assistant is already, in a sense, actually spying on you and you know that - the manufacturer tells you upfront. These aren't the same kind of fear.
The Furby manufacturer told you upfront:
- it listened all the time
- it learned to speak, word by word, via your speech
The first comment, 10 comments up, was specifically written to provide that context: the Furby manufacturer was up front about spying.
Working with you, and steel-manning your contributions:
- You're trying to explain a distinction you see between local data processing and remote data processing. i.e. a microphone in a room recording you isn't spying, but a microphone with a data connection is "in a sense, actually spying" on you "meaningfully".
- example: "the Furby didn't relay audio data anywhere other than the Furby, and I'd like to point out the voice assistant does - your comment intends to highlight the Furby listened, but it only listened locally. Mentioning voice assistants and using them in an analogy may give a reader the understanding voice assistants process data locally, like Furbys"
The idea the Furby was "[not] real" persisting after reading the comment, is probably why it seemed like I was saying the voice assistants don't record voice.