• Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies

    Yeah, this is a devious plan that has been going on for years, when they added the realName field!

    • Fjdybank@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.

      The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.

      • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        So, how about we start freaking out when someone starts making these fields required, instead of right away?

        • WraithGear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          because it’s too late at that point, which is the whole point and issue!

          if the field is necessary, but the data is useless, then it shouldn’t be there. if the data becomes required then it should not be there. so the result, it should not be there

          • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            because it’s too late at that point, which is the whole point and issue!

            A PR is when the discussion is supposed to happen. It’s an open source project, nothing happens “too late” to discuss. You see that change in the pull request, you can start moaning about it.

            if the field is necessary, but the data is useless, then it shouldn’t be there

            Who defines what’s “useless”? You? On what authority?

            • WraithGear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              the discussion happens right now, because i said so, because others are talking about it. and the data is useless when anything can be put in, it’s not used for anything, and it can’t be verified. it fails all three tests in determining usefulness

              • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                Why hasn’t the discussion started when realName was introduced?

                Someone may find these data points useful, for whatever reason. No point in being angry at a date field, mate.

                  • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 hours ago

                    Again: what authority do you have to decide which data fields are useful, and which aren’t?

                    How do you personally differentiate between “useful” and “useless”? Is it: “I have no need for it therefore it needs to be removed”, by any chance?