I think that the point is to make the author understand exactly why it's creepy, so that next time they write something like this, they actually see the problem.

I'm not advocating this approach. But it's not entirely off base.

It’s way off base because it’s unacceptable in civilized society to pay stalkers to harass people to make a point. Do you seriously think it is ok to hire a PI to follow someone to “make a point”? I find that horrifying.

Further this is a pro-privacy article. The author seems to have a good grasp of the situation and has communicated it well to a general audience. It even concludes with how to turn the feature off and a call to reconsider how your data is being used.

> > I'm not advocating this approach.

But I do understand the temptation.

Yes I read your comment. My question was if you are ok with hiring stalkers.

No; that's kind of the point of my comment.

I believe the logic goes something like this:

- The author is defending analogous behavior

- Therefore the author is ok with this behavior

- Therefore the behavior is ok to use on the author

It's not actually ok, but nobody actually did it either. They just made a snarky comment on the internet to make a point, which has a much lower bar than actually doing the thing.

But the author isn’t defending analogous behavior. The author isn’t defending Google.

There are better ways to make a point than sharing a fantasy about having someone stalked. It’s a joke until it isn’t.

> The author isn’t defending Google.

My reading of the thread is that this is the fundamental presumption of the thread.

I think your differences with the OP go deeper.

> It’s a joke until it isn’t.

My reading wasn't that it was necessarily a joke, but making a point.

Sort of like threatening to put a camera in the bathroom of someone who says they have "nothing to hide" when discussing the patriot act.

It makes the point in a more visceral way than a simple argument ever could, and gets the point across quite well.

You read the thread but did you read the article? This entire thread is based on an emotional over reaction to a misreading of the article.

I did, it feels open to interpretation.

Top two readings on my end are that this is either a person who really didn't want to write this article that was ordered to, or someone who is trying to be maximally defensive of google without actually lying (possibly someone with nostalgia for the 2000-2005 era when they were the internet's good guys).