RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
72% Positive
Analyzed from 3282 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#data#opt#posthog#default#opted#companies#users#training#don#company
Discussion (139 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
But then it gets used to describe the reverse, and we have to add words to clarify.
I once saw a post here with a correctly described opt-in telemetry before, and the top comment here was attacking them for the reverse, thinking it was including them by default, so there's little winning, it's one of those words that has just come to mean it's opposite.
I've taken to a) leaving a negative Google or yelp review for such establishments and b) never coming back. This is a practice that needs to die.
The internet really stinks. The 1999 teenager in me somewhere is really bummed.
But it's apparently yet one more thing we have to be actively suspicious of as it defaults towards an intolerable state. So it's easier to just rip it out of the system and move on.
At this point, I lost count of how many times in the last two decades I fell for it, although I'm more used to it now. Companies that grow into success and change. With the AI frenzy, PostHog also started going all-in, and not only that, but they seem to be exploring no-coding tools and whatnot. Supabase is another one that was cool, but now it is in the AI abyss.
Indeed, at this point, I'm the constant. Maybe I'm the problem here, and perhaps I should learn to accept the new AI overlords, give up and go full AI.
Users on our EU cloud instance are opted out by default
So too users with agreements that prevent training (e.g. BAA, MSA, or similar)
All other users on our US cloud instance are opted in by default
We will anonymize all data before it's used for training
We will only use data that already exists in your PostHog instance
We will do all the model training ourselves, which means...
We won't sell or send your data to third-party model providers
You can opt out at any time via your org settings in PostHog (admin access required)
Training won't start until June 29, so there's plenty of time to decide
Cool, cool. Glad to see that you are the arbiter of what your users have "opted" to do, and their input isn't required.
While we're at it, I'm going to "volunteer" your time to rebuild my patio this weekend. You don't need to worry about volunteering, I've done it for you.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
Opt-in vs opt-out organ donorship has a large impact.
Most people on any web app won’t stray from the defaults.
The same cannot be said for some random corporation training AI models off your data to make a buck or two.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48212992
It's unclear if my private data being used for training has a cost to me, but I'm giving posthog money already. They shouldn't double dip.
Consent matters.
This feels like a really bad defense. It’s great you provide transparency but I don’t want my analytics system writing my code. There are already so many other first movers that are better that I would rather connect to your analytics.
Anonymize by what definition? GDPR? Do note that this very high bar.
> All other users on our US cloud instance are opted in by default
Including end users in the EU? You should remember that you are obtained the personal data directly from data subject meaning Article 13 obligations apply. Article 13 omissions cannot be cured retroactively. Can you show all of your customers have provided sufficient Article 13 notice to cover this processing?
And do note that you are almost definitely within the scope of 3(2)(b).
I feel like you either know that already, or should, but either way I won't be using your product anymore. Just pulled it out of the projects I'm personally in charge of and in the future I'm going to recommend against using it both internally and for clients.
Legitimately disappointed.
That's actually an interesting note. So you all will be managing the training runs on hardware you own or rent and manage?
This is slimy.
1. Lobby your representatives to improve your data protection laws, even if you think it's pointless to do so
2. Stop attacking EU data protection laws, even if they inconvenience you
As can be seen from this announcement, data protection laws do make a difference.
Legitimate question, I am not trying to prove a point.
The fact that they only opt-out EU users, because regulation forces them, tells you all you need to know about the moral compass of PostHog.
This shouldn't even require regulation, but apparently expecting companies to act morally is a bloody pipe dream. Profit over morals and concerns for your costumers, apparently.
> All other users on our US cloud instance are opted in by default
Perfectly demonstrating that we need regulation to protect the general public, most companies will not do the right thing but the thing that benefits them first and foremost.
if you are looking at your metrics, I want to be clear that this transition will not happen overnight, but it _will_ happen for this reason, so just be aware that your short-term metrics won't tell the full story
I remember people cheering about their "OS" web redesign, which was the most confusing and unnecessary UX complication when I needed to go track down a session replay to debug something (They've since added navigation to the top right.)
- The OS Redesign
- "Sexy Legal Documents"
- Emails with "<relevant hedgehog meme goes here>" as the subject line
- Having a merch shop with action figures of your CEO
It works both ways. When you're looking for adoption and making very pro-user moves, I guess it can be a benefit. However, when you're now looking to grow revenue and making very anti-user moves, it's insult to injury.
I'm the last person to say that tech "shouldn't be fun" or something overly-broad like that, but if your messaging doesn't match the decisions of leadership, you're gonna have a bad time.
Back to scanning open source projects, I guess.
> Put simply, because otherwise we will not have enough data to train a model that's actually useful.
Hmm, when asked to opt-in to giving their data away for yet another AI non-service, people don't want to. That's strange! The only way to get their data is to assume you can take it and force them to tell you to stop. Wonder what that could mean? Oh well, it's a mystery no one will be able to solve.
And since the big platforms don't have to unwind their advantages or pay back for the methods that are now restricted and considered illegal, they can peacefully extract rents from their entrenched positions for even longer, while everyone else is prevented from using the same ladder they climbed.
Posthog has unfettered logged in access to some sensitive stuff. What steps are they actually taking to scrub sensitive data from my replay before being used to train a model?
> Put simply, because otherwise we will not have enough data to train a model that's actually useful.
AKA we won't be able to make as much money if we required you to give us permission to use your data.
AFAICT this now gives them default permission to train an LLM on your code (as Posthog telemetry data is inextricably tied to your code) use it, and even sell it if they wanted to (as it's not your data anymore, it's their model). Yikes.
I’ve now made our decision. We won’t be using them.
If they are going to position yourself as the non-slimy no-BS guys, they can’t pull this nonsense.
Good job guys.
They’ll use your product and your data to later sell a product back to you.
As an aside, this also means the EU rules are working.
This does not make any sense.
> Now they want to use the data for a business purpose.
They raised VC money and they want a return so this was predictable.
...except, we have made the decision for all the US customers already. Nice.
The temptation and the value is too great, and the opt-in opt-out consent thing ends up being a fuckery where the company tries to trick the user into allowing them to take a look into the data, presumably because they are selling the product at a loss and need an alternative revenue model.
Just make it impossible from the get-go, the fine print would be that the data can be shared off-band explicitly, in an email, or if explicitly copy pasted in a support chatbox, but there would be no mechanism for us to read the data from the databases much less from the client.
I don't mean it would be an air-tight mechanism like Signal or ProtonMail, if a court order would ask us to produce client info, we would still reserve the right to produce the data, but exceptionally, and definitely not for training models.
> "Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one."
> OpenAI being founded as a nonprofit and becoming for profit.
> Didn't Anthropic literally say they wouldn't train on your data or keep it for longer than 30 days unless legally required, and then decided to opt people in to having their conversations used for training?
> OpenAI being founded as a nonprofit and becoming for profit.
I think this is a common misconception, or a disregard for nuances. The NFP was not and cannot be converted to a Corp, that's kind of the idea of an NFP. However there exist satellite companies.
Sam Altman does not own shares of Open AI because there are no shares.
OpenAI has a for profit company (capped, Public benefit corporation), which Sama I don't think has shares in. It's an instrument for investments.
But every transaction needs to be fair and in kind, there can be no gifts at any point in a way that would magically negate the purpose of an NFP, Sama cannot cede the IP of ChatGPT to himself or one of his companies, that's not what's going on.
> Didn't Anthropic literally say they wouldn't train on your data or keep it for longer than 30 days unless legally required, and then decided to opt people in to having their conversations used for training?
Again, saying it, putting in terms of contracts (that can be retracted with notice), and putting it in the charter are all different.
Another term I would incorporate is a Seppuku term, if we get hacked, I resign, the company goes bankrupt. Anything else is the wrong attitude to computer security for companies that want to scale to Global reach.
I wonder if they regret opensource, considering people will be using LLMs to replace them which have surely trained off of their code.