That's not nearly as useful though. What devs want is to know how their users are interacting with the software, so they can make improvements to it. Opt-in gives a much smaller sample size, and a strong selection bias. I don't know enough to say that it's completely useless, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it is.
> Like any at all?
No, don't sidestep the question, actually answer it. What data are they collecting and how is it harmful? The devs feel this information is useful to make their software better. If you think you are harmed by this, please explain how.
If you're collecting data, you need to prove it's not harmful - not the other way around.
- But how is collecting data harmful?
The problem isn't any single data point. It's that historically, seemingly innocent data collection has repeatedly enabled serious harm when contexts change. (And yes, I'm aware of Godwin's Law[1], and/but the historical examples are directly relevant here.)
- Surely one more app collecting data isn't the end of the world?
No, but it's death by a thousand cuts. We're at a point where young tech professionals are already resigned to total surveillance. Each new data collection might seem minor, but they're all contributing to a flood of personal data leaking from our devices. We need to start turning off the taps, not adding new ones.
GGP said avoiding data collection is a reason to use linux. GP asked what data collection. The answer was "any at all". That is not "sidestepping the question". GGP didn't state they think they are harmed by data collection, they only stated they don't want their data to be collected.
Right, so we're back to the OP of this thread--open source software doesn't have access to a useful tool, and you can't explain why you are refusing them to have this tool. This results in lower quality software, to no one's benefit.
I disagree with your attempt to frame this like it is an issue that needs to be resolved at all costs. Yes, I don't give developers access to my data which would be useful for them. No, I won't explain why I'm refusing this. Yes, it might result in some lower quality software. I am completely fine with that situation and wish it will stay that way.
That's totally fine and they have an opt-out mechanism for people who feel like that. I don't think anyone is behaving badly here. They want to collect data to make their software better; opt-in has significant downsides; and you have an option to turn off the data collection. What are we complaining about?
The problem is that right now I only know about this in the first place because I just happened to open hacker news at this hour of the day. You seem to agree that it is totally fine if I don't want my data collected, but how could I even prevent it if I don't know about it (since it is opt-out only)?
This is a fair point! I think for people who feel so strongly about this, it's perhaps the best compromise that you have to go digging into the settings for it, since opt-in is basically the same as not having it at all. It seems unlikely to me that a project like Manjaro would go out of their way (as Google etc do) to use dark patterns and disrespect your wishes here.
"Opt-Out" is a dark pattern per definition. If everyone does it (and on some platforms many people do), it leads to an impossible eternal whack-a-mole situation where the user is constantly monitoring their system while still being unable to ever be 100% certain that every leak is closed.
This is why some users opt for a system that enforce Opt-In or even Opt-Never by default. The sheer peace of mind is worth a lot.
And it's not even such a strange stance. Consider eg Enterprise or National security. Why shouldn't a regular user have such security by default?
> If you think you are harmed by this, please explain how.
I expect my computer to do what I order to do and not to do shady things behind my back. Imagine if you were a business owner and your new hire would sell your commercial secrets to competitors. Would you like it?
As for improving software, users should contribute voluntarily, not mandatory otherwise it looks like a form of non-monetary tax.
If you want to some actual examples of how optimization based on data can be harmful, I suggest reading Seeing Like a State. If more people that made decisions based on data read this book, the world would be a better place.
The TL;DR is that data about a system does not reflect the underlying system perfectly, and thus is a distortion of the real system. Decisions based on this distorted data can be equally distorted, sometimes dangerously so.
For software telemetry for instance, telemetry only gives the "what", not "how"
eg. feature X is not used.
Possible explanations:
- Not useful to users -> Probably should be removed.
- Not discoverable -> Probably should be kept and made more discoverable.
- Difficult to use -> Probably should be kept and made easier to use.
Most times (I'm looking at you here Mozilla and every commercial software provider ever) people take the shortcut of assuming the first explanation and removing it prematurely.
Features A and B may be equally important, but B may be applicable only in specific circumstances. If you'd compare A and B on the metric of "how often it's used", you may see B being used much, much less than A, but that's not reflective of the feature, but of the job being done.
> That's not nearly as useful though. What devs want is to know how their users are interacting with the software, so they can make improvements to it. Opt-in gives a much smaller sample size, and a strong selection bias. I don't know enough to say that it's completely useless, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it is.
So? Crime being profitable doesn't make it legal.
> No, don't sidestep the question, actually answer it. What data are they collecting and how is it harmful? The devs feel this information is useful to make their software better. If you think you are harmed by this, please explain how.
So if I enter your house you will also enter a discussion of what I stole and if you really needed it before you are allowed to kick me out even though I never had permission to enter your house in the first place?
Let's try another analogy, someone breaks into your computer and copies all of its content, including saved passwords in an unlikely case you save them, and installs a keylogger. It is not harmful by itself, right?
No, you are not breaking into my home and stealing stuff. Nevertheless, an analogy can be made between breaking into my home and stealing stuff, and taking my data without consent. "Analogy is a comparison or correspondence between two things (or two groups of things) because of a third element that they are considered to share." - try again to think what the third element could be in this case - I'm sure you can do it!
It's theirs, not yours. Fundamentally, it's not about harm - it's about you getting stuff you have no (moral, cultural, and in many places legal) right to.
As for harm: there is possibility of it, a lot of software does collect data for it to be used against users' interests, and I have no reason to believe yours isn't one of them.
But that kind of data leads to dev-centric practices like A/B testing that's just being used to confirm their own assumptions and is tailored towards their own goals, not the users'.
Asking the users what they like and why is much more useful.
> Like any at all?
No, don't sidestep the question, actually answer it. What data are they collecting and how is it harmful? The devs feel this information is useful to make their software better. If you think you are harmed by this, please explain how.