On 14/07/2022 0:44, John Mills wrote:
Do you consider people manipulated by asking them an unambiguous question that would default to no?
"Would you like to place a bet of 100 EUR on a die roll, winning an extra 100 on a 6 and losing otherwise? [N/Y]: N_ Suppose I ask a million people this question. Some non-negligible percentage will say Yes. Some of them have misread; some have misunderstood; maybe they didn't read at all and just assumed they should say Y for LO installation questions. Maybe the actually momentarily in a betting mood and I caught them in this moment of weakness. But I've manipulated all of these people. And that's with a question that's worded fairly; your question won't be. How do I know this? Because you've basically indicated what phrasing you expect to have:
Also are LibreOffice users too 'stupid' to understand that they are empowering innovation by answering a request that would not collect and personaliy identifiable data?
I'm sure that's how you'll sell them onto accepting your data collection + money-making scheme. And many people will click "yes" without realizing what this means.
Why is it unreasonable to collect data with the express permission of users
In my example above, you will be collecting X% of people's 100 EUR after they have given express permission. Plus, like I said, you will likely manipulate people into giving their permission, so it won't be _that_ express. It will make LO another one of those shady applications that you have to warn people about. > with the sole aim of improving the application and user experience? But this is not _quite_ the sole aim, now is it? Or did polypoly stop being a for-profit organization while I wasn't looking? Look, even if someone might convince me some data collection is appropriate (which is not impossible, but hasn't happened yet), your rhetoric so far makes me feel it's probably for the best if polypoly were not involved in it.
