Hacker News Reader

Comment by p1esk | Hacker News Reader

But you can opt out, right? So what’s the problem?

Also, is Teams (and other messengers) any different?

Defaults matter!

Just look at how much Apple and Mozilla get from Google by having their browser as a default (ca. $20,000,000,000 and $400,000,000 IIRC per annum).

Or look at how many people rejected the tracking prompt displayed for FB when it was added to iOS (+70%).

> But you can opt out, right? So what’s the problem?

This thinking is the problem. "Oh, we just added your entire private/privileged/NDA/corporate information to our training set without your consent. What's the problem?"

Opt-out must be the default.

Edit: By "Opt-out must be the default." I mean: no one's data must be included until they explicitly give consent via an opt-in :)

Especially since once it has been trained, it is in the model, and I am not aware of any way anyone has discovered to later remove from the model single or selected training data points, except for re-training/re-learning the model. So basically the crime might already be done.

But I also know that so many businesses are too sluggish to make a switch and employees incapable of understanding the risk. So unfortunately not all of Europe will switch away. But I hope a significant number gives them the middle finger.

There's something called "machine unlearning" being worked on to address these issues.

This doesn't mean that I support Slack or any opt-in without consent training model. On the contrary. I don't have any OpenAI/Midjourney/etc. account, and don't plan to have one.

> Opt-out must be the default.

Don't you mean opt-in must be the default?

Or am I misunderstanding the concept of opt-ins :P

Opt-out by default = Opt-in.

Opt-in by default = Opt-out

Opt-in is "I agree to have my data included"

Opt-out is "I don't agree to have my data included"

Exactly! Allowing access to your data should only be opt-in

Worth noting: This is a legal requirement in Europe

The GDPR mandates that consent is given affirmatively, with this kind of "oh we put it in the EULA nobody reads" being explicitly called out as non-compliant.

You can opt-out by manually writing an email to them. The process matters.

They could make it even better, like requiring signed/certified physical mail /s. Or fax...

:-D

The way to opt out is by contacting support,in an era where opt ins and outs should be handled by a toggle button.

Either they don't expect many people to wish to opt their slacks out, or they're aware of the asynchronous friction this introduces and they don't care.

Do they discard everything processed so far every time someone opts out?

and how does that even work? Slack is a chat app. Does everyone involved in the chat need to opt out for it to be meaningful? What about bots?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com