You’re right; I’m sorry that I didn’t read your comment sufficiently carefully.
The reasoning there is purely my expectation and isn’t based on data or particular experience.
This is a great response and I’m glad to have read it. However I think you miss one important disadvantage of your approach: These alternatives are mostly blacklists, and so they become less useful as you get further into the less-trafficked corners of the web, which is also where you’re most likely to hit, e.g., invisible compromised resources.
I’ve also been surprised at how little “whitelist fatigue” I’ve gotten. I would have naively expected to get tired of whitelisting domains, but in practice it’s continued to feel freeing rather than obnoxiously attention consuming, and site functionality is almost always easy / obvious to enable properly. It’s possible that sometimes I miss intended functionality, but I doubt that this comes close to outweighing the benefits.
Edit: the following paragraph misunderstands Said’s comment and doesn’t address the point that it was meant to; apologies.
Finally, I don’t buy the argument about incentivizing web authors. If trackers work less well, there is obviously less incentive to use them. If the only thing holding back authors from adding trackers willy-nilly is user annoyance at page bloat, then it’s clearly not enough, and so telling people to just go on shouldering that annoyance to ensure that the annoyance is minimized seems like privileging second-order effects that I would expect to be small.
This nicely explains why I feel so embarrassed when I learn that someone I’m talking with is more knowledgeable than I thought. I wonder how to avoid subconscious overconfidence- / humility-projecting.
It might work to add a TAP for thinking “if this person were much more/less knowledgeable than me, would I have the same presentation in this conversation?”
Ah, excellent. I didn’t know there was a github.
As I mentioned in a post that has now fallen off the end of meta: while RSS feeds work much better now, usernames still don’t show up as the author in the feeds.
However, when you save your progress and are asked to save a password, there’s no indication that it will be sent to you in an email or saved at all in recoverable form. I used my least-secure password generation algorithm anyway, but: Do you think you could add a note to the effect that users should not use passwords that they use elsewhere?
The problem with these particular extensions is that they don’t sound plausible for this type of AI. In my opinion it would be easier when talking with designers to switch from this example to a slightly more sci-fi example.
The leap is between the obvious “it’s ‘manipulating’ its editors by recognizing simple patterns in their behavior” to “it’s manipulating its editors by correctly interpreting the causes underlying their behavior.”
Much easier to extend in the other direction first: “Now imagine that it’s not an article-writer, but a science officer aboard the commercial spacecraft Nostromo...”
On the other hand, the number of people working on a problem, and the speed with which they are individually able to work, can’t be ignored. “Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow”—Linus Torvalds, talking about something pretty similar (if much, much simpler).