Hacker News Reader

Comment by wybiral | Hacker News Reader

The irony here is that this article has at least 20 trackers.

PS: Firefox Quantum is great

Is it really ironic though? This article isn't published by DuckDuckGo - it's published by Vox, which doesn't necessarily agree with their viewpoint.

I didn't say it was hypocritical. Just ironic.

What definition of irony would this fit? Honestly asking.

The Alanis Morissette definition.

I sincerely don't think it fits but I'm no expert in philosophy.

Maybe it's just an interesting (sad) fact that an article about data privacy is full of trackers?

I think we all got what you were trying to say and we're just being pedantic, sorry.

It's neither ironic nor hypocritical that the Vox website reporting on DDG's view about data privacy has 20 trackers.

Nice overview with examples (if somewhat lengthy): https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-irony-a...

> Nice overview with examples

And trackers.

Because Vox is using the concept of losing your privacy to ad trackers and companies to generate clicks, whilst providing those companies with valuable user data and impressions.

There are at least two possible arguments behind this question.

One (which, to be clear, is not how I interpret your comment) is the tired gotcha "if you hate society, why do you partake in it?", which is simply not substantial enough to answer.

The other argument I've seen is actually worth some thought, though I'm not ready to give a definitive answer in either this case or as a general principle:

Entities that play a certain game effectively endorse that game by playing it.

The devil lies in the corollary to that observation: whatever prizes are awarded by that game will only go to entities that are willing to play that game.

> There are at least two possible arguments behind this question.

What was the question?

"Question" as used here is closer to "matter" or "problem" than to asking.

I just can't find the right word to describe a point raised about a paradoxical relationship. When I read it, I find an implicit question, though I cannot put to words the exact inquiry. Maybe "Why?"

In a way, all replies on a public forum are implicit questions. (This is where I get even more hand-wavy, sorry)

Pointing out hypocrisy is now brushed off as a "tired gotcha". What a world we live in.

Pointing out hypocrisy by itself is not a virtuous action; it is a neutral vehicle for a deeper analysis of traditions, opinions, mores and values. This resulting analysis can then be virtuous or not.

In some debates, it is used as a quick way to endorse the status quo without having to analyse it further. A way to "win" a debate that shouldn't be won by either party.

Instead of debating the current practices or the proposed alternative approach on their own merits and circumstances, you first require that one of the participants (the one proposing a different approach) step down from the debate and only come back when the proposed approach is fully baked, working, and has all the optimizations of the current approach in place.

It ignores the differences between the two participants — be it background, power, money, skills, context, future commitments.

Corales are full of holes: _whoever knows the prizes and doesn't like the game can recreate them._

Worst case for the game-hater is play once and fork off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com