Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

> We believe concerns are due largely to unclear phrasing in the Privacy Policy

This is gaslighting. It's not the wording people have an issue with, it's the nonconsensual spyware.

It certainly looks that way. Though in fairness, gaslighting implies the intent to deceive. I fear that these folk could actually be more of the kind that simply doesn't see anything wrong with their way of "making" money.

While technically legal (although the last about that might not have been said either), I think they are going to find out how their grubby ideas of right-and-wrong might not align at all with a substantial part of the user base of the product they now own.

I believe that they are already doing actual practical harm in some places, which might end up costing them dearly if it would trigger some kind of organized revolt. With their behavior so far, that can/will only end in escalation. I very much doubt that the plans of this new owner will become the financial success they may have imagined.

Sadly, Audacity as a product will no doubt suffer as a consequence. Still makes me wonder if there hasn't been some kind of financial support/injection by a commercial vendor involved, somehow. Of course it doesn't have to, but the idea just does not want to leave me alone.

How could it be nonconsensual? The policy is provided when installing the software. This may certainly be a bad decision for the Audacity team, but nobody is being forced to use their product.

It is nonconsensual when the starting premise is "using Audacity".

"Consensual" in that case would mean opt-in telemetry.

That’s some serious mental gymnastics. I’ll be sure file a complaint at the supermarket for nonconsenual collections: I wanted to take the vegetables home, but they don’t let me opt out of paying.

Unless the telemetry is somehow a form of payment for using the (open source) product, I think your argument falls under:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Given that the context here is “a producer of something setting the terms under which they’ll give it to somebody else”, my grocery store hardly sounds like an extreme example.

It is when you add telemetry to your vegetables.

Imagine if your grocery store terms were that you have to pay to take them home... and also that you must consent to a grocery store employee following you home and sitting in your kitchen, watching your vegetables. They'd take note of how and where you store them, when you use them, how you prepare them, how much you eat in each sitting, what meals you eat them with, and how satisfied you seem to be with them. They'd report all of this information back to the grocery store. They'd also report anything else they see or hear and decide they might be interested in later on.

Does that really not sound extreme?

I don't think it's always that easy. Once people are committed to a certain product, quitting or switching to an alternative isn't always simple or even possible. There can even be substantial financial damage involved. Maybe not in a way that the producer can be held legally liable for, but damage nonetheless.

I believe this argument of "users have a freedom to either take it or leave it" has been repeatedly debunked many times over. It just isn't accurately describing reality.

It does reflect reality, as evidenced by what’s about to happen for Audacity: if they keep the terms as-is, people will either use the software as the terms are written or they’ll stop using it.

As an example, UK schools are likely to have to either negotiate an alternate license or switch products.

What’s been “debunked” is that products die off because of things like adding telemetry, because plenty of people don’t consider that a dealbreaker

Nobody reads much less agrees to these idiotic policy texts. I don't care who made the software or their "conditions" for using it. If it's running on my machine, it answers to me and me alone. This "we put it on the terms and conditions so it's fine" bullshit needs to go away.

I wonder if this is what the folks on the Copilot team thought, shortly after cloning all those licensed repos to their machines.

If you’re not concerned with the licensing on software once you’ve managed to get a copy, I guess Audacity’s behavior shouldn’t be an issue: just compel it to behave differently on your machine.

> just compel it to behave differently on your machine

Oh I will. The thing is I shouldn't have to do this. We're all tired of these obnoxious companies forcing this sort of crap on us. Why can't they just release their stupid thing with no strings attached? If this is their "contribution" I'd rather they just did nothing.

> "just compel it to behave differently on your machine."

Right there you name one of the biggest joys of FOSS for me. On my machine, I sure do love that all my tools do my bidding the way I want them to. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com