To be fair, that sounds a lot more reasonable. A CEO represents their company and their actions leading to people boycotting their company is just people voting with their wallet. People have boycotted small businesses due to the opinion of the business owner's children, even after persistent apologies by the business owner. In this case I don't even think there is anything significantly wrong. This isn't much different than a company sanctioned advertisement gone wrong.
While people are free to Boycott for any reason they want
A person that has respect for the concept of Free Speech WOULD NOT boycott a business simply because the CEO of that business supports the current president of the US.
That is simply NOT a reasonable reaction to learning of said support.
So no it does not "sound a lot more reasonable", it sounds like a perfect example of society losing respect for free expression
Not to mention the replies on his tweet are full of people arguing nonsense like "it seems you have something to hide" , and "cancelling means shutting down voices", not realising that people would be much less angry if cancellation meant twitter account cancellation and not losing one's jobs.
While I definitely disagree with the way drive doesn't give access to users for their own data, I think giving access has it's own problems, as you might land in another Cambridge analytica type situation.
1. Shady addictive game requires full access to drive.
2. Shady game downloads all your chats with all contacts
3. FB is on fire since they allowed access to people's chats with others, even those who didn't download the game.
4. People get mad on FB/Google for not protecting their data.
The same list you gave already applies to data already readable on Google Drive - most people have data that can be used against them on those drives. Also, many apps ask for (And get) permission to read contacts and messages on your phone.
Claiming that this is the reason is sort of like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the titanic when you can see the iceberg.
Much more likely it is to stop import/export to a competing app. The fact they will let you keep a local encrypted copy, but not an unencrypted one under any circumstances, is telling.
The number of people who use whatsapp is an order of magnitude or more than the number of people who consciously use Google drive, as in people who know google drive exists. Even the people who have google drive, most of them have much less intimate data on it than in their private messages on WhatsApp.
If we are to take the position that all users are tech literate and should be fully in charge of how their data is used, then even Cambridge analytica wasn't bad. People explicitly gave it access to data that was accessible to them. However, the uproar proves otherwise. People don't like it when they click yes yes and some random app has access to their social media data or messages. This is why Gmail also started requiring independent audit for all gmail apps.
And you are still avoiding the equivalence that everything you describe is already happening with sms messages at least, and generally much more. None of your arguments carry any weight especially since they don’t explain why it’s ok for data to be unencrypted on your google drive in the first place.
That wasn't the only argument though. If the data was encrypted with a facebook held private key, the user would still not be able to see it. If it was E2E encrypted with the only key being on the device, people will get mad when they reset their phone and get a new one, only to find their messages are gone.
SMS had the same problems forever, but isn't owned by a company, thus you can't blame xyz company if random apps access your SMS. No company got ever investigated by multiple nation states over that.
You still haven't addressed my main question though, how will a random app scraping your WhatsApp be any less of a scandal than Cambridge Analytica?
The same way random apps scraping your sms, a common occurrence, aren’t. The sms app is by google. The WhatsApp app is by Facebook. What’s the difference?
Just like every thing else, this too was amplified by the internet.
If you said something controversial 40 years ago at a grocery shop, shop owner might be mad and refuse to service you, and might even put a bad word for you across the town. In the worst and rarest case, you might have had to leave town.
Now, anyone can record the interaction, put it in front of more people on twitter than the front-page of a big newspaper. And this amplifies things. Not to mention that it remains there forever for the whole wide world.
At this point in many places, you will be more quickly forgiven for taking cash from a shop's register than saying something which is not the prevalent opinion.
While mobs have existed since eternity, the internet amplifies mob voices and makes everything you ever said available to a determined adversary. Since it isn't possible to predict what will be acceptable in society 10 years later, it makes sense to blog anonymously, lest the mob comes for you and even your loved ones who may not even share your opinions.
I get the impression that feature for feature, ES6 is identical because AS3 and AS4 were build on ES. I remember reading performance is better today, but can’t find the stats on that.
It’s the “creation experience” that has never been matched.
Of course, it depends on who you are - For true coders, the current systems are fine and in many ways better, but for wholistic visual first creatives, who may also code well, the current tool sets are totally lacking.
I don't think that will get the NYT to listen. A better idea is that if you are a subscriber, unsubscribe and give this as the reason. As recent history proves, the NYT truly listens to cancellations. A bunch of people running pihole, not so much for sure.
If you are a subscriber then a better signal would indeed be to unsubscribe rather than to block the site obviously, most of us probably aren't subscribers though. My guess is they're still earning some ad revenue from non-paying users, so reducing the number of readers should have an impact. I am aware that pihole users probably don't see the ads anyway. It might not make them listen, but I wouldn't underestimate the impact either. If they notice a drop in traffic from a big site like HN it might raise some eyebrows at least. At the same time you would have fewer people sharing the links to their other networks so you would get these second order effects as well. How big would this impact be? Hard to tell, only the nytimes would know for sure. I do feel that at least the people that signed the petition from above should stop using the nytimes. Actions speak louder than words after all.
It is there with folks who know about those people and feel connected to them. SSC has a lot of it's audience on HN. Hence you see the outrage here. People can't feel similarly outraged by every doxxing since they have limited time, energy, and emotional bandwidth. If people were forced to worry about issues just on their impact, a large number of kids are starving in Africa, and by that logic people shouldn't worry about anything else till they can do something about that.
