
I’m So, So Sorry. Here’s My Belly. Now Please Move On. - ssclafani
http://uncrunched.com/2012/02/12/im-so-so-sorry-heres-my-belly-now-please-move-on/#
======
marshray
I don't think I buy this.

Companies have been shipping apps that collect email lists, GPS, records,
phone info, and all manner of other personal info back to their servers. We
used to call this what it is: spyware, and it was considered illegal. Usually
it is claimed this information is intended to "optimize the app for your
personal preferences" but "social" is the new hotness. Often when it comes
down to it we find this data is more valued for building marketing profiles of
individual consumers.

Comparing these companies to a cute picture of a "docile retriever" being
attacked by a pit bull (as if they're the victim!) is just over the top.

~~~
baddox
I have always classified things as "spyware" not according to whether or not
they asked me for permission, but rather how they _use_ the information they
acquire. Namely, spyware collects personally identifiable information and
sells it to third parties.

Everyone knows that Google and Facebook use your information both to target
ads for you and to improve their other services (e.g. better search results,
better news feed). Do they both qualify as spyware?

~~~
marshray
If I did install an app from Google or Facebook, and it siphoned my personal
data and sent it home to their servers in a way I found surprising, yes I
would feel like it was spyware. Yes, this has happened to me and it made me
angry.

However, I'm sure there are far more rigorous definitions of spyware and you
should probably go with one of those in formal writing. I know it when I see
it, but I'll let the experts define it.

------
whenisayUH
Not to take the discussion totally off-topic, but if you are a portfolio
company of the Crunch Fund, is this type of thing by Arrington a net positive
for the portfolio co?

I suppose it could be him "getting their back", but I wonder if his invectives
agst Bilton in this case or others more generally end up doing more potential
harm to portfolio companies than they help.

While it was fine as a blogger for TC, I wonder if the no holds barred mantra
of Arrington introduces an element of uncertainty for his cos, i.e., "what
might this guy say that I may have to deal with later"?

------
Spearchucker
He says that it's a stretch that Path's list of contacts will lead to
"roundups and arrests" or dissidents in Egypt.

I think he's being naïve.

Path is, as he points out, quite unlikely to share its harvest with anyone but
American authorities, if asked.

However, if they're that cavalier about personal data, I wonder how much
attention they pay to data protection.

Someone from some bad country realises there's a sweet honeypot at Path, hacks
through it without anybody knowing it, and people in Egypt disappear for a
multi-year up-state tenancy.

------
rsingel
My response to Arrington - e.g. why start-ups need to learn the basics of Fair
Information Practices: [http://ryansingel.net/blog/2012/02/13/stop-screwing-
users-pr...](http://ryansingel.net/blog/2012/02/13/stop-screwing-users-
privacy/)

------
unimpressive
The thing is, I'm not sure I really believe that companies _want_ to have
public dialogues about social issues. After all, the longer the dialogue
persists the longer it sticks in the public consciousness that you "did a bad
deed". One of the problems resulting from mob backlash is the inevitable slow
death of the public apology.

A public apology from a company is currently something of a litmus test for
the success of a movement. If any old Internet shit storm elicits a public
apology in the future, then a public apology can no longer be a decent metric
for how much has been changed by web activists. And will eventually lose all
credibility.

------
freshhawk
So social media and it's virality/network effects are great when used for
hype/promotion/marketing but "the mob" is "destroying our community" when the
feedback is negative?

Nothing here was a "mistake". These weren't bugs that accidentally got
shipped. Path was acting as spyware to push growth and Airbnb was ignoring a
serious problem with their business model.

I find it funny that his dog analogy works way better another way. Path was
the pit bull and "social media" kicked it in the head. Arrington is mad
because he likes the pit bull and it was just a "mistake".

The whole things strikes me as "waaah, we can't fuck over users as easily
anymore. I want social media to let me push my message to the little people,
not have them talk about my product with each other!"

------
meric
Makes a good point but the writing in #555 is still hard to read. Maybe #333
will work out better. (I couldn't finish reading it.)

~~~
moe
And readability-plugin fails, too. One would've thought Arrington knows how to
setup a blog...

------
RexRollman
Wow. I just learned that Uncrunched is as annoying as TechCrunch is.

