Hacker News Reader

I think the author has the terms "opt-in" and "opt-out" reversed, which was a bit confusing. If something is "opt-in", then you have to explicitly decide to opt-in, which means that by default you won't be included.

A good example of this is organ donation. Some countries have it opt-in (i.e., you have to decide to donate), whereas in other countries it is opt-out (so you are a donor by default).

View on HN

"opt-in by default" kinda makes sense as a combination of words, but you're right that people just usually call it "opt-out" (and vice versa)

To opt-in to something means to consent to it, to enable it, to take action to have it.

So "opt-in by default" doesn't make any sense.

However, I do see this opposite usage increasingly often, which means "opt-in" shouldn't be used any more.

Using "on by default", "enabled by default", "off by default", "disabled by default" would be clear and make sense.

I think it describes a somewhat common scenario, where it's on by default but there's an effort made to make it seem like you went out of your way to agree to it.

Like a pre-checked box on a form about your desire to receive marketing mails.

Which makes it opt-out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com