No. To "opt" literally means "to make a choice". If the choice has been made for you, you are not "opted-in", you are in.
Maybe you could Newspeakify it into "co-opt-in"
No. Opt-out means you have to affirmatively make the choice to not be tracked or whtatever.
That’s being needlessly pedantic and being opted-in clearly details what has happened.
I could not disagree more. You can't "opt-in" someone else because they're not opting in at all. I think this is an important and meaningful distinction that we should call out, particularly since we're seeing more companies being deceptive on this point and trying to trick people through this confusing language.
And yet the British data protection agency thinks you can via something called a soft opt-in.
A choice was still made.
"Enabled by default" would make more sense, and imply that it could be disabled.
So tired of these language games and dark patterns. Wittgenstein would be proud. Apple is also legendary for this.
I thought the opting is something that is done by the user. If someone else has opted you in, that's... something different.
There is no opt-in by default, you are in by default, then it's opt-out, if you can disable it or is out by default then it's opt-in.
In other words, opt-out. Which just proves op's point. The title is at best misleading.