This response is an unnecessary attempt at a personal attack. My responses were focused on responding to your positions. You went to a public forum made a post concerned about few things, inviting discussion about what you raised concerns about. Then you begin to complain when your post receives public discussion, on a public forum, trying your hardest to discredit the validity of discussion not fully aligned with your own believes.
I don’t believe my response contains major fallacies. However, I’m open to you pointing them out if you perceive any.
edit:Yeah Huel should still respond to the more factual concerns you raise about cookies. Are they opt-in or opt-out, as I understand it, the not strictly necessary cookies are opt-in, (also are there differences between regions)? And is the Google Captcha site protection thingy what Huel is going to continue to use in the future, even though of the potential minor privacy concerns with it? @amie_huel.
edit2, improved readability and rewrote the whole thing to be less of a misinterpretable mess of words
If there are specific complaints about the way Huel has arranged its online business are they not best addressed to Huel itself?
On the other hand if the purpose of starting a community discussion here is to raise public awareness of these concerns, I think that’s been achieved; though there doesn’t seem to be much agreement or support. The phrase ‘dark patterns’ smacks of conspiracy-theory, and the implication of deliberate deception and ‘borderline illegal(ity)’ is unsurprisingly likely to offend those of us who have faith that Huel isn’t untrustworthy, let alone ‘pure evil’.
I’d be interested in a detailed explanation of how Huel should be operating in order to stay safely outside the suspicions the OP raises. So, @9q0bh, what’s the precise and practical remedy you’re seeking? You may have alluded to it already, but please spell it out in simple language, for those less tech-savvy.
In any case I expect @amie_huel will be along shortly to assuage all your fears. Though is it possible that a firm believer in ‘dark patterns’ will simply disbelieve any assurances given?
I’m old-fashioned, but the idea of account deletion still strikes me as odd. Pre-internet we’d cancel our accounts, or terminate our accounts. We’d inform the company and that’d be that. We wouldn’t demand they delete our accounts. The expectation would be that they’d keep their records of the past account, and we’d keep our own. Still seems reasonable.
Companies didn’t used to keep all their records on the internet, where they will, eventually, inevitably, get hacked. Or leaked by a disgruntled employee. Or used to train an AI.
Companies also have vastly more data about us in the digital age. Freemans catalogue had no idea how dog-eared the pages of the lingerie section were. Freemans.com know exactly which photos you spend the most time gazing at, down to the microsecond.
I’m very much in favour of the “right to be forgotten”. This dark patterns shit is loopy though.
