> assuming that "because privacy" is not an argument that will sway me, can you explain why i should default to the less-useful option just for the sake of appeasing the people most likely to change the defaults?
No, I can't. I think that ethical principles like respect for users' privacy are more important than collecting data to fix bugs/features. Shareholders may disagree, of course; this is where developer agency and collective bargaining can come in, but that's a longer discussion.
> telemetry is useful, and most people don't really care enough to change the defaults one way or the other.
This sentence is correct, but it isn't enough to justify making telemetry opt-out. I don't think this is a situation where the apathy of the majority can overrule the rights of the minority:
- People can't always choose to use or avoid software; they have schools, employers, an inability to make informed consent, etc. that can prevent them from using your software with consent to its terms.
- Privacy is often a need, not a want. People--including their future selves--are often at-risk, and need software to respect their vulnerability by default (as auditing all transmitted data for all software is beyond unrealistic).
- A person should not have to justify having privacy. Others should have to justify taking it. That's how rights like privacy work; privacy is something we have by default until it is infringed upon.
- Rights like privacy, speech, and information access without censorship (from books to newspapers to the Internet) aren't driven by will of the majority. They're driven by the fact that preserving them for the minority is necessary.
Users have lots of things that would be useful to developers, but that doesn't mean developers are entitled to them.
No, I can't. I think that ethical principles like respect for users' privacy are more important than collecting data to fix bugs/features. Shareholders may disagree, of course; this is where developer agency and collective bargaining can come in, but that's a longer discussion.
> telemetry is useful, and most people don't really care enough to change the defaults one way or the other.
This sentence is correct, but it isn't enough to justify making telemetry opt-out. I don't think this is a situation where the apathy of the majority can overrule the rights of the minority:
- People can't always choose to use or avoid software; they have schools, employers, an inability to make informed consent, etc. that can prevent them from using your software with consent to its terms.
- Privacy is often a need, not a want. People--including their future selves--are often at-risk, and need software to respect their vulnerability by default (as auditing all transmitted data for all software is beyond unrealistic).
- A person should not have to justify having privacy. Others should have to justify taking it. That's how rights like privacy work; privacy is something we have by default until it is infringed upon.
- Rights like privacy, speech, and information access without censorship (from books to newspapers to the Internet) aren't driven by will of the majority. They're driven by the fact that preserving them for the minority is necessary.
Users have lots of things that would be useful to developers, but that doesn't mean developers are entitled to them.