2 results found

1. Diversity Report articles should not be paywalled behind ExtraCrunch

   I was disappointed to discover that the recent Pinterest diversity report article https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/16/pinterests-diversity-report-is-missing-some-key-data/ was locked behind an ExtraCrunch subscription. It goes without saying how important these reports are for holding tech companies accountable for meeting D&I goals, and as a PoC in tech I'm dismayed that I can't read about how Pinterest has met/not met their goals this year. I did a quick search on TechCrunch and I think this is the first time a Diversity Report has been paywalled, and I suggest that this NOT be a trend going forward, given the public benefit to all of reading key findings from these reports.

   I was disappointed to discover that the recent Pinterest diversity report article https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/16/pinterests-diversity-report-is-missing-some-key-data/ was locked behind an ExtraCrunch subscription. It goes without saying how important these reports are for holding tech companies accountable for meeting D&I goals, and as a PoC in tech I'm dismayed that I can't read about how Pinterest has met/not met their goals this year. I did a quick search on TechCrunch and I think this is the first time a Diversity Report has been paywalled, and I suggest that this NOT be a trend going forward, given the public benefit to all of reading key… more

   8th ranked

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Under Review  ·  0 comments  ·  Editorial Feedback  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

2. Why was my comment not posted?

   I posted a comment to an article [ https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/11/google-is-investigating-the-source-of-voice-data-leak-plans-to-update-its-privacy-policies/ ], it had no derogatory language, and I just dove into the facts presented in the article. However my post was never added to the article, nor did it let me add it when I tried to again, saying I already had. Seeing as how it seems that it was rejected by some desk-jockey, I'd like to understand what part of your terms of service my post violated so I can make sure not to offend people who have problems with just facts. I am attaching my post so you can please answer me about why it was rejected. All facts are merely culled from the article, and expanded upon to give perspective about the amount of raw audio data Google has humans listening to from the Google Assistant product.

   ---

   0.2% seems to me to be an idiotically high number, and not the insignificant amount they wish to imply.

   I mean consider that Google bragged about having 1 BILLION Google Assistant devices installed in January. Then lets guess that at a LOW mark 10% of those devices are "assistanting" during a day for 5 seconds. I am guessing low....

   If you take 0.2% of that, it means that they have 27,777 hours of audio to parse through each day. And it seems from the report that about 15% of audio data is not even intended (I gathered that from the sentence stating ("The leaker had listened to more than 1,000 recordings, and found 153 were accidental in nature").

   So it means large swaths of information (even some of it private) is being listened to by "language reviewers". I mean these systems put NSAs Carnivore, and later incarnations to shame, and are voluntary. :)

   I posted a comment to an article [ https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/11/google-is-investigating-the-source-of-voice-data-leak-plans-to-update-its-privacy-policies/ ], it had no derogatory language, and I just dove into the facts presented in the article. However my post was never added to the article, nor did it let me add it when I tried to again, saying I already had. Seeing as how it seems that it was rejected by some desk-jockey, I'd like to understand what part of your terms of service my post violated so I can make sure not to offend people who have problems with just facts. I am attaching my post so you can… more

   8th ranked

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Under Review  ·  0 comments  ·  Editorial Feedback  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close