Posted April 27, 2018
TerriblePurpose
Kwisatz Haderach
TerriblePurpose Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2008
From Canada
Elvis is Dead
Find me in STEAM OT
Elvis is Dead Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted April 27, 2018
okay, well I'm done feeding him, back OT.
Jobdone123
New User
Jobdone123 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Apr 2018
From Hong Kong
HypersomniacLive
The Reluctant Voter
HypersomniacLive Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2011
From Vatican City
zeogold
The Puzzlemaster
zeogold Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2012
From United States
Posted April 28, 2018
I didn't. I haven't changed my views at all. I still stick to my guns on saying profiles should be opt-out rather than opt-in, but now that profiles are actually here and I see what they look like (remember that my first post on the subject was written before their arrival), I see that they screwed up and still give information (although arguably minor) even when you set everything to max privacy, which shouldn't be happening.
Breja
You're in my spot
Breja Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Apr 2012
From Poland
Posted April 28, 2018
zeogold: I didn't. I haven't changed my views at all. I still stick to my guns on saying profiles should be opt-out rather than opt-in, but now that profiles are actually here and I see what they look like (remember that my first post on the subject was written before their arrival), I see that they screwed up and still give information (although arguably minor) even when you set everything to max privacy, which shouldn't be happening.
Your're not making any sense. Because of the opt-out profiles numerous users who did not want it had their entire profiles made public the moment they went live. The combination of GOG's lack of communication and default settings forced it upon those users. And even with better communication - we're not obligated to check our mail every day. Being out of contact is not tantamount to relinquishing our basic rights. Your stance on this is entirely self contradictory. Either sharing someone's info without their concent is wrong, or not. It's outright absurd to say that it's wrong to share a minor part of my profile against my wishes, but it's ok to share someone elses entire profile without even asking. What's the logic here? "It's ok to violate someone's privacy as long as they don't know about it"?
Post edited April 28, 2018 by Breja
zeogold
The Puzzlemaster
zeogold Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2012
From United States
Posted April 28, 2018
zeogold: I didn't. I haven't changed my views at all. I still stick to my guns on saying profiles should be opt-out rather than opt-in, but now that profiles are actually here and I see what they look like (remember that my first post on the subject was written before their arrival), I see that they screwed up and still give information (although arguably minor) even when you set everything to max privacy, which shouldn't be happening.
Breja: Your're not making any sense. Because of the opt-out profiles numerous users who did not want it had their entire profiles made public the moment they went live. The combination of GOG's lack of communication and default settings forced it upon those users. And even with better communication - we're not obligated to check our mail every day. Being out of contact is not tantamount to relinquishing our basic rights. Your stance on this is entirely self contradictory. Either sharing someone's info without their concent is wrong, or not. It's outright absurd to say that it's wrong to share a minor part of my profile against my wishes, but it's ok to share someone elses entire profile without even asking. What's the logic here? "It's ok to violate someone's privacy as long as they don't know about it"?
However, in being fine with this, I also want people to have the OPTION to opt out of profiles. Currently, that isn't the case. If you set your privacy settings to max, you still show info. This is a massive oversight and should have been an option from the get-go, to be able to just zip away everything and show nothing but a big "this profile is private" sign.
If we were to theoretically go with the best-case scenario, GOG would make profiles opt-out for new users and opt-in for existing ones, but the chances of them actually doing something smart like this would be about the same chance of them fixing rep finally.
I voted for the wishlist entry OP put up, but not the one gogtrial34987 put up. People should be able to easily make things private if they want to, but I think that the company will be shooting themselves in the foot if they make it all private by default.
(Note that I'm not addressing the GDPR here - that will determine what they HAVE to do, but I'm talking about what I think they SHOULD do.)
Post edited April 28, 2018 by zeogold
Breja
You're in my spot
Breja Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Apr 2012
From Poland
toxicTom
Big Daddy
toxicTom Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Feb 2009
From Germany
Posted April 28, 2018
high rated
zeogold: to theoretically go with the best-case scenario, GOG would make profiles opt-out for new users and opt-in for existing ones
Almost... The right way would have been to - disable profiles for every existing user not explicitly have consented to them
- send emails to all users asking for consent and checking their privacy options
- show a one time popup to all existing users first visiting after the change: "We've introduced new features, please check [OK] [Not now (=all private)]
- Walk new users through privacy options during account creation.
Hell, MS does that, Google does that... And those are certainly not companies known for data reduction and data economy...
zeogold
The Puzzlemaster
zeogold Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2012
From United States
Posted April 28, 2018
zeogold: I think it's for the better in the end. I think that if profiles were opt-in, GOG would probably lose a lot of the impact they're looking to make with these things due to the majority of people just settling on the default.
Breja: Just like the last time, you're not answering the point I made, you're explaining to me the reasons for GOG's decision that I know perfectly well. Explanation is not justification. Something being wrong but profitable doesn't make it right. 1. Hiding everything by default
2. Making everything open by default
As I already said, if it were to be done properly/the best way possible, it'd be opt-in for people already on GOG, opt-out for newbies, but given GOG's general competence level, chances are that this simply isn't going to happen, leaving us with the two options above. If given only those two to choose from (as I believe the situation really is), I'd rather go with option 2 than option 1.
That doesn't mean, however, that I somehow think you shouldn't be at least able to hide everything if you want to.
You're right about that, and it would be nice if GOG would send out emails or something about this change, but again, it's probably not going to happen.
Post edited April 28, 2018 by zeogold
Gerin
AB Normal
Gerin Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: May 2010
From United States
Posted April 28, 2018
Voted. Thanks for starting this.
zeogold
The Puzzlemaster
zeogold Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2012
From United States
Posted April 28, 2018
zeogold: to theoretically go with the best-case scenario, GOG would make profiles opt-out for new users and opt-in for existing ones
toxicTom: Almost... The right way would have been to - disable profiles for every existing user not explicitly have consented to them
- send emails to all users asking for consent and checking their privacy options
- show a one time popup to all existing users first visiting after the change: "We've introduced new features, please check [OK] [Not now (=all private)]
- Walk new users through privacy options during account creation.
Hell, MS does that, Google does that... And those are certainly not companies known for data reduction and data economy...
toxicTom
Big Daddy
toxicTom Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Feb 2009
From Germany
Posted April 28, 2018
high rated
rtcvb32
echo e.lolfiu_fefiipieue|tr valueof_pi [0-9]
rtcvb32 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Aug 2013
From United States
Posted April 28, 2018
Looking over profile options, there isn't enough customization or control to be usable in my opinion.
Too bad...
Too bad...
HypersomniacLive
The Reluctant Voter
HypersomniacLive Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2011
From Vatican City