Some thoughts - each clause is independent of the others.
I am typically sympathetic to fighting over-aggressive surveillance for profit; I am wary of it more when govt uses it, but it can be dangerous with companies too. This is a valid concern.
The creators of the site clearly had a chip on their shoulder before this patent. It could read like they are "just mad" at Spotify for a number of reasons, and that this isn't a big deal. I think the EFF does better at selling the problems of seemingly benign tech.
I am beginning to get allergic to appeals to trans-this and racist-that when it seems so tangential: This isn't some systemic racist policy of government where the intent is muddy but the effect is clear - this is a creepy program that is made to make money on targeting services, whether you're trans or not.
>Emotion recognition software is largely seen as racist pseudoscience
It's like they're trying to derail the conversation they started. Why do so many petitions just throw a bunch of arguments in there and hope one of them sticks?
This petition is the sort of thing I'd come up with if I was asked to build a false flag operation to discredit people that care about privacy.
I am typically sympathetic to fighting over-aggressive surveillance for profit; I am wary of it more when govt uses it, but it can be dangerous with companies too. This is a valid concern.
The creators of the site clearly had a chip on their shoulder before this patent. It could read like they are "just mad" at Spotify for a number of reasons, and that this isn't a big deal. I think the EFF does better at selling the problems of seemingly benign tech.
I am beginning to get allergic to appeals to trans-this and racist-that when it seems so tangential: This isn't some systemic racist policy of government where the intent is muddy but the effect is clear - this is a creepy program that is made to make money on targeting services, whether you're trans or not.