Digg Founder Kevin Rose's Pownce Raises Privacy Concerns(weburbanist.com)
weburbanist.com
Digg Founder Kevin Rose's Pownce Raises Privacy Concerns
http://www.weburbanist.com/2007/06/27/pownce-kevin-roses-newest-venture-sounds-like-glorified-email/
8 comments
As a quick preface, I usually think its much easier to have a coherent conversation when we actually reply to the comment we referring to, otherwise it won't be listed in the threads section and will easily go unseen.
"Moreover, they will "run some small advertisements in your list of notes" which sounds a lot like GMail., which crawls through emails to find keywords then uses those to display ads on your GMail pages."
That sentence insinuates that Pownce is--or will--use data context to increase ad relevancy. I don't believe I am inaccurately representing the article by saying so. I don't know the details of the Pownce private policy, but I do know that the excerpt I quoted (the only excerpt of the policy contained in the article) is meaningless in regards to using context to serve ads.
Sitting back and accepting this sort of speculative commentary is detrimental because it adds confusion and misinformation without bringing with it any merit to redeem itself. This article could have been done in a valid way, by an individual with an understanding of the American legal system, there may indeed be more than illusionary specters to the issue of Pownce's privacy policy, but we won't learn anything from the haphazard and speculative inquiry that this post embodies.
"Moreover, they will "run some small advertisements in your list of notes" which sounds a lot like GMail., which crawls through emails to find keywords then uses those to display ads on your GMail pages."
That sentence insinuates that Pownce is--or will--use data context to increase ad relevancy. I don't believe I am inaccurately representing the article by saying so. I don't know the details of the Pownce private policy, but I do know that the excerpt I quoted (the only excerpt of the policy contained in the article) is meaningless in regards to using context to serve ads.
Sitting back and accepting this sort of speculative commentary is detrimental because it adds confusion and misinformation without bringing with it any merit to redeem itself. This article could have been done in a valid way, by an individual with an understanding of the American legal system, there may indeed be more than illusionary specters to the issue of Pownce's privacy policy, but we won't learn anything from the haphazard and speculative inquiry that this post embodies.
Let's just keep this simple:'
1) We know Kevin Rose isn't a man of principle - he sides with corporations to save his skin, then the mob if he risks losing his followers (see: Digg HD-DVD scandal)
2) There is money to be made by targetting ads that used scraped content as a basis for choosing what to display to who (see: Google)
3) There is nothing in the Pownce privacy policy that says they won't scrape your content.
So a guy who will do what it takes for his company, right or wrong, has a ton of content he could scrape to increase ad revenue and he isn't saying that he won't do that. Is it reasonable or not to then 'be concerned' about ones privacy? You tell me what part of this you disagree with.
"Many companies offer programs that help you to visit websites anonymously. While Megatechtronium will not be able to provide you with a personalized experience if we cannot recognize you, we want you to be aware that these programs are available." (Pownce.com/privacy)
What do you suppose they mean by a 'personalized experience'?
1) We know Kevin Rose isn't a man of principle - he sides with corporations to save his skin, then the mob if he risks losing his followers (see: Digg HD-DVD scandal)
2) There is money to be made by targetting ads that used scraped content as a basis for choosing what to display to who (see: Google)
3) There is nothing in the Pownce privacy policy that says they won't scrape your content.
So a guy who will do what it takes for his company, right or wrong, has a ton of content he could scrape to increase ad revenue and he isn't saying that he won't do that. Is it reasonable or not to then 'be concerned' about ones privacy? You tell me what part of this you disagree with.
"Many companies offer programs that help you to visit websites anonymously. While Megatechtronium will not be able to provide you with a personalized experience if we cannot recognize you, we want you to be aware that these programs are available." (Pownce.com/privacy)
What do you suppose they mean by a 'personalized experience'?
"The personal information you provide may be used for such purposes as responding to your requests for certain products and services, customizing the advertising and content you see, and communicating with you about specials, sales offers and new products."
The privacy policy clearly states that they will do what the article is insinuating. The article didn't even bother to quote this relevant segment, or to even mention that it exists. It instead makes it argument based on an irrelevant quote that doesn't support its insinuation. The article is poorly done, and fails to make a meaningful point because it builds a foundation on thin air, even though there was a solid foundation for it to rest upon in the first five paragraphs of the privacy policy.
That, rather than slandering Kevin Rose, is what quality journalism is based upon.
As for the personalized experience issue it seems more likely that anonymity services will impede assignment of cookies and thus the cookie framework used to maintain persistent user sessions will be rendered non-functioning. This is a protocol issue, not another mythical infringer of privacy to point fingers at while screaming hysterically.
The article uses bad evidence deceptively when good evidence is readily available, and could have been used to make the point cleanly and without making leaps of faith in the argument. Why would one waste time reading analysis performed by someone who clearly doesn't even care enough to perform analysis?
The privacy policy clearly states that they will do what the article is insinuating. The article didn't even bother to quote this relevant segment, or to even mention that it exists. It instead makes it argument based on an irrelevant quote that doesn't support its insinuation. The article is poorly done, and fails to make a meaningful point because it builds a foundation on thin air, even though there was a solid foundation for it to rest upon in the first five paragraphs of the privacy policy.
That, rather than slandering Kevin Rose, is what quality journalism is based upon.
As for the personalized experience issue it seems more likely that anonymity services will impede assignment of cookies and thus the cookie framework used to maintain persistent user sessions will be rendered non-functioning. This is a protocol issue, not another mythical infringer of privacy to point fingers at while screaming hysterically.
The article uses bad evidence deceptively when good evidence is readily available, and could have been used to make the point cleanly and without making leaps of faith in the argument. Why would one waste time reading analysis performed by someone who clearly doesn't even care enough to perform analysis?
Hahahah awesome. So you basically criticized the article for doing something it didn't do (make misguided claims), then in the same breath you yourself made misguided claims. This is almost too funny for words. You wrote:
"Its great to see people who haven't used a service making misguided claims."
Then you wrote:
"The privacy policy clearly states that they will do what the article is insinuating."
Misguided claims? Now you concede that the article was correct and that its claims were not misguided. So you made the false claim that the article was making misguided claims without bothering to make sure your own claims weren't misguided. What a mouthful! Yes, the article could have had more relevant direct quotes from Pownce, but it was based on solid fact as you now admit - unlike your own claims which were patently false. Let me sum it up: the article was right, and you falsely accused it of being wrong, thereby doing exactly what the article didn't do and what you criticized it for - making misguided claims.
"Its great to see people who haven't used a service making misguided claims."
Then you wrote:
"The privacy policy clearly states that they will do what the article is insinuating."
Misguided claims? Now you concede that the article was correct and that its claims were not misguided. So you made the false claim that the article was making misguided claims without bothering to make sure your own claims weren't misguided. What a mouthful! Yes, the article could have had more relevant direct quotes from Pownce, but it was based on solid fact as you now admit - unlike your own claims which were patently false. Let me sum it up: the article was right, and you falsely accused it of being wrong, thereby doing exactly what the article didn't do and what you criticized it for - making misguided claims.
You're ignoring what I am saying, seemingly because you are focused on mocking me. As such I'll make a final attempt to explain myself, but it seems likely that communication will be thwarted yet again.
There was solid and easily locatable evidence that supports the premise of the article in question. The article did not use that evidence, and instead based its premise upon an irrelevant quote that did not support its argument.
Thus the article is fundamentally flawed: it arrives at its conclusion by making a leap from one disconnected idea to a second; there is no chain of reasoning to follow. Worse than simply making a leap in its reasoning, it misinterprets a disjoint quote and passes it off as support for its argument.
This method of pseudo-analysis will occasionally render correct segments of analysis. That doesn't matter. The pseudo-analysis is still flawed, unreliable, and devoid of value.
There was solid and easily locatable evidence that supports the premise of the article in question. The article did not use that evidence, and instead based its premise upon an irrelevant quote that did not support its argument.
Thus the article is fundamentally flawed: it arrives at its conclusion by making a leap from one disconnected idea to a second; there is no chain of reasoning to follow. Worse than simply making a leap in its reasoning, it misinterprets a disjoint quote and passes it off as support for its argument.
This method of pseudo-analysis will occasionally render correct segments of analysis. That doesn't matter. The pseudo-analysis is still flawed, unreliable, and devoid of value.
I have already conceded that the article could have cited better sources, but my point remains: you could have as well. You implied that the article author did not know as much as you did. You suggested that they were not only not citing sources that didn't help the argument but also making factually inaccurate claims.
In so doing, you took an implicit position of authority on the matter by claiming (as a user with insider knowledge) that the author was wrong. That was wrong, which makes you equally (or more so) guilty of unsound reasoning and misleading or misguided argument. If you claim to know better and are wrong, doesn't that make your statements even more misguided than someone who raises 'concerns' about an issue and says it quote "sounds like Gmail' and turns about to be justified in these concerns?
The article clearly raises the entire question as a 'concern' as stated in the headline. Your statements were much closer to being assertions of fact based on expert opinion. Could the article have cited better sources? Yes. Does that mean the article author didn't know what he was talking about? No, and the article turned out to be correct. Could you have cited better sources yourself? Yes. Did it turn out that the article was right and you were wrong? Also yes.
You tell me. Seriously. You tell me: what is worse: (1) failing to site the right source but writing truthful content, or (2) implicitly claiming expert status and writing false content defaming an accurate source.
In so doing, you took an implicit position of authority on the matter by claiming (as a user with insider knowledge) that the author was wrong. That was wrong, which makes you equally (or more so) guilty of unsound reasoning and misleading or misguided argument. If you claim to know better and are wrong, doesn't that make your statements even more misguided than someone who raises 'concerns' about an issue and says it quote "sounds like Gmail' and turns about to be justified in these concerns?
The article clearly raises the entire question as a 'concern' as stated in the headline. Your statements were much closer to being assertions of fact based on expert opinion. Could the article have cited better sources? Yes. Does that mean the article author didn't know what he was talking about? No, and the article turned out to be correct. Could you have cited better sources yourself? Yes. Did it turn out that the article was right and you were wrong? Also yes.
You tell me. Seriously. You tell me: what is worse: (1) failing to site the right source but writing truthful content, or (2) implicitly claiming expert status and writing false content defaming an accurate source.
Its great to see people who haven't used a service making misguided claims. Pownce's advertisements are akin to those on Facebook's recent update page: they are simple text ads.
Nothing about them, and certainly nothing about the quote used in the article, suggest that they are using note context to target audiences.
This kind of article with haphazard speculation is no signal and all noise.
Nothing about them, and certainly nothing about the quote used in the article, suggest that they are using note context to target audiences.
This kind of article with haphazard speculation is no signal and all noise.
There is no claim in the article that Pownce scrapes content, but nor does Pownce's privacy policy state that they don't. So you tell me: if it makes them more money, and they haven't said they won't do it, what will they do?
This kind of comment is at least as misleading as a self-professed speculative article it is reponding to.
P.S. Which do you work for - Google or Pownce?