Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Non-Consensual Personalization

amitp.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 239 posts

Re: Non-Consensual Personalization

#21

Post by titzer »

efitz wrote: post #17

I reject the framing. The problem isn’t the lack of personalizabilty(?) or customizability. The problem is that we’ve collectively allowed providers of content to warp the www into a state where they have the ability to control our experience. Consider what the web would look like if instead of html and JavaScript, it only consisted of a content description language devoid of any ability to control layout, fonts, col…

Right on! Imagine if the web served up content and I could write my own processors for it to lay it out however I want...man, that'd be great.

But the Web became about branding the moment they introduced images and font choices. I remember designing a website for my local skate rink in 1997 that had a left navbar with buttons I did in photoshop and cut-n-paste javascript to add a lens flare when you moused-over them. Haha! Suh-weet.

Re: Non-Consensual Personalization

#22

Post by abrambleninja »

benbenolson wrote: post #18
colordrops wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also strongly disagree with the author. They're probably referring to things like Gnome and Unity and PopOS. The thing is, these are opinionated options in addition to everything else you can do with Linux, rather than replacements that restrict your options. You've also got things like NixOS, which is definitely going in the opposite direction, allowing you basically infinite customization.

Oh, for some reason I read that bit as "the Linux kernel non-consensually personalizes." You're right, though: it's definitely referring to userspace libraries, not the kernel itself. And yes, you can still easily avoid GNOME, Unity, and anything else you don't want to use: Openbox, i3, dmenu, and countless other window managers and GUI applications exist and work perfectly well (as they did a decade ago). That pleth…

In general I agree with you about the ability to customize Linux, but the author could be referring to systemd, which (from what I've seen) has been the target of many complaints about being too central and hard to replace, especially with how it is required by so many projects in the Linux ecosystem (from distros like Debian and Arch to DEs like GNOME).

Re: Non-Consensual Personalization

#23

Post by lmm »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #7

The author mentions linux... but where does this happen on linux? I love using a desktop that does exactly what I tell it. Yes it takes longer to set up. But I use a computer every day, it's worth it.

GNOME removed a lot of configurability that was present in previous versions.

Re: Non-Consensual Personalization

#24

Post by z0r »

jrockway wrote: post #15

I feel like the implication is that people prevent you from customizing stuff for ego reasons, but isn't it a lot of code and testing to implement the personalization UI? But thinking about it more, I suppose the answer is to let the users write their own clients. Netflix should have a JSON API that's a list of all the programs, and each record should contain a link to video file. They don't do that because of DRM an…

I've wanted that model for music streaming for a long while now. Let me pay for a streaming API key and plug it into third party software that doesn't have a flavor of the day interface and set of features.

Re: Non-Consensual Personalization

#25

Post by echelon »

jrockway wrote: post #15

I feel like the implication is that people prevent you from customizing stuff for ego reasons, but isn't it a lot of code and testing to implement the personalization UI? But thinking about it more, I suppose the answer is to let the users write their own clients. Netflix should have a JSON API that's a list of all the programs, and each record should contain a link to video file. They don't do that because of DRM an…

There was an article on HN the other day that suggested that (and I'm paraphrasing) "only failed products have settings".

We hear a lot about simplicity and how it's easier to study users and optimize for desired outcomes: conversions, upsells, continued use, whatever. Having a simple product nudges the user in the direction you want them to go and makes your product intuitive.

I think there's another reason for simplicity: incompetence. Your team doesn't care enough about the product that they're actually using it. There are no in house power users. They're not making it for themselves, so they simply do not care. They're there to finish the Jira tickets and shovel out a Fischer Price product that meets the requirements doc.

You can tell which software was created by power users. Vim. Linux. Blender.

Re: Non-Consensual Personalization

#26

Post by dwelch2344 »

Except instead of corporations sneaking in your house to paint your room green during the middle of the night, it’s the corporations deliveratelu choosing to paint their lobby green + you just happen to frequent their lobby

Re: Non-Consensual Personalization

#27

Post by travisjungroth »

efitz wrote: post #17

I reject the framing. The problem isn’t the lack of personalizabilty(?) or customizability. The problem is that we’ve collectively allowed providers of content to warp the www into a state where they have the ability to control our experience. Consider what the web would look like if instead of html and JavaScript, it only consisted of a content description language devoid of any ability to control layout, fonts, col…

We could all pass around something closer to the notion of pure data (JSON, plug for EDN) but we don’t. Even when we could. Maybe we should more? I don’t find “companies make us do otherwise” to be a compelling answer of why we’re not. Even in spaces where that isn’t a constraint it doesn’t happen much.

> There might be a rich marketplace of both free and paid experiences that I could download and install into my browser.

To what extent would you vs the author control these experiences? The author may express their freedom by giving different experiences to different people based on how we respond. Then we’re back where we are.

There’s a bit of a freedom vibe through this whole conversation, but there’s also a strong element of control. It’s a “my house my rules”, libertarian, property owner, “you’re free to do whatever I want” vibe.

The author’s analogy of a company painting their walls seems off. It seems more like a wall that paints itself. And since this criticism is going against software I wouldn’t call critical infrastructure, it’s more like an invited house guest that isn’t singing the songs you want.

Re: Non-Consensual Personalization

#28

Post by userbinator »

efitz wrote: post #17

I reject the framing. The problem isn’t the lack of personalizabilty(?) or customizability. The problem is that we’ve collectively allowed providers of content to warp the www into a state where they have the ability to control our experience. Consider what the web would look like if instead of html and JavaScript, it only consisted of a content description language devoid of any ability to control layout, fonts, col…

The CSS standard defined user stylesheets and specified their behaviour.

Unfortunately, it seems most browser vendors are slowly attempting to destroy this feature.

Re: Non-Consensual Personalization

#29

Post by donatj »

I really miss customizing Mac OS X with full blown custom themes back in the day. Making my machine feel like my own.

These days it seems like most people don't even customize their wallpaper. It feels so strange to me.

There used to be whole vibrant OS customization communities and they just disappeared overnight with some decisions made by Cupertino and Redmond.

Re: Non-Consensual Personalization

#30

Post by topaz0 »

abrambleninja wrote: post #22
benbenolson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, for some reason I read that bit as "the Linux kernel non-consensually personalizes." You're right, though: it's definitely referring to userspace libraries, not the kernel itself. And yes, you can still easily avoid GNOME, Unity, and anything else you don't want to use: Openbox, i3, dmenu, and countless other window managers and GUI applications exist and work perfectly well (as they did a decade ago). That pleth…

In general I agree with you about the ability to customize Linux, but the author could be referring to systemd, which (from what I've seen) has been the target of many complaints about being too central and hard to replace, especially with how it is required by so many projects in the Linux ecosystem (from distros like Debian and Arch to DEs like GNOME).

On the other hand, it is extremely configurable, whatever else you might think about it.
Post reply on HN