• MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Talk about easy way out. “There, problem solved. It’s not a violation if we write it somewhere in tiny font.”

    • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      The amount of words needed to fully explain this to tech illiterate idiots would be so many that those idiots would just argue they cannot be expected to read all of it. These people already do this with the terms + conditions documents they agree to.

      Incognito mode did every single thing it said it did and behaved exactly as I expected from day one. Is there a single user here who actually was surprised by how it worked? Did anyone honestly think it was like Tor or something? Why? Where did anyone ever get that idea at all?

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Expected incognito functionality sits in the gaping chasm between actual incognito functionality and TOR. When I’m being told I can go incognito - you know, sneaky, in disguise, I don’t expect to have all of my activity broadcast back to those that say I’m incognito.

        Of course, trusting current Google is foolish, but that doesn’t make it less deceptive.

        • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          So do you feel the naming was inherently misleading which led you astray? Because incognito mode absolutely kept things ‘sneaky’ in terms of hiding the things I look up from other people who use the same computer. Which is specifically what Google said it would do and showed examples of in TV commercials. And it definitely did (and still does) that.

          I’m also struggling to understand what you feel you ‘trusted’ Google on exactly. What did they tell you that you believed but, as it turns out, was not true?

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          So you’re saying it’s Google’s fault you relied entirely on false assumptions based only on the single-word feature name and ignored the very short disclaimer that appears every time you use it?