Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"Honoring the promise you depended upon to get users to install the feature in the first place" isn't ideological, or pearl-clutching.

Imagine your point in other contexts:

"If your company is about to go bankrupt unless it gets some serious revenue, then sure, you start selling the user data you promised not to, ideological pearl-clutching be damned."

"If a priest receives the confession of the killer in an unsolved mystery, he should report it to the police, religious pearl-clutching be damned."

And "critical degradation of service" is overstated; users always had the option to use another browser (like Mozilla seems to want these days). When they shut off everyone's unsigned, whitelisted addons in 2016, that wasn't regarded as a critical degradation.




The context is that people's adblockers, noscript/umatrix, and Tor add-ons were not working.


> "If a priest receives the confession of the killer in an unsolved mystery, he should report it to the police, religious pearl-clutching be damned."

Confidentiality in such areas (also med/law) is usually restricted to past actions. If you confess you're going to kill someone, that does indeed have to be reported to the police. I doubt your local laws are different here.

Thus to construct a better analogy we need ongoing harm that was initiated in the past but can only be shortened by taking action. Maybe a confession like "Just had an argument with my kid and imprisoned it in the basement without food and water. Will release it after two days". Now should this have to be reported to CPS? I'm not sure, but think I would favor yes.


I was making a moral (and somewhat practical) argument, not a legal one about a particular jurisdiction.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: