If anyone thought that Incognito somehow protected their data from websites or services, then that’s their fault for jumping to that conclusion in the face of everything saying that’s not the case.
If it doesn’t conceal your identity, then that’s pretty clearly misleading. They’re not selling to experts, the users of this are laypeople. It’s like if you sold a “waterproof phone” and the packaging all made it look like it could withstand water, but then when it got wet it broke and you were like “people just assumed it was waterproof, it’s not our fault”.
Sure experts could tell, and enthusiasts would read the expert opinions on it, but that’s not something you should expect of laypeople considering how it is presented.
It IS local incognito. By definition the name is accurate.
The wording on the warning both BEFORE AND AFTER the change says explicitly websites you visit, and anything external WILL still record and track you.
It said BEFORE AND AFTER that ONLY local things such as history omor cookies arnt saved.
It is 100% incognito. For the local browser. It warms BEFORE AND AFTER that it’s not real privacy.
They changed the wording basically from an assumption people will read the examples given on the SAME page as the warning. To having the examples built into the warning.
Basically they assumed their users could read. They were wrong, people can’t read. So they have to scream it now.
“local Incognito” is some real mental gymnastics. If the witness protection program told people they’d help them go incognito, but only hid them from their own families and made it easy for strangers and enemies to find them, would you really consider that be what a reasonable interpretation?
Stop defending people who use shit like huge ToS docs and dark patterns to weasel out of deceptive marketing
If anyone thought that Incognito somehow protected their data from websites or services, then that’s their fault for jumping to that conclusion in the face of everything saying that’s not the case.
Also…
In meme sentence, words disappear.
That was actually their lawyer’s argument, that “incognito mode” being private was just something people assumed and ran with, not their fault.
I mean, they called it “Incognito”.
If it doesn’t conceal your identity, then that’s pretty clearly misleading. They’re not selling to experts, the users of this are laypeople. It’s like if you sold a “waterproof phone” and the packaging all made it look like it could withstand water, but then when it got wet it broke and you were like “people just assumed it was waterproof, it’s not our fault”.
Sure experts could tell, and enthusiasts would read the expert opinions on it, but that’s not something you should expect of laypeople considering how it is presented.
It IS local incognito. By definition the name is accurate.
The wording on the warning both BEFORE AND AFTER the change says explicitly websites you visit, and anything external WILL still record and track you.
It said BEFORE AND AFTER that ONLY local things such as history omor cookies arnt saved.
It is 100% incognito. For the local browser. It warms BEFORE AND AFTER that it’s not real privacy.
They changed the wording basically from an assumption people will read the examples given on the SAME page as the warning. To having the examples built into the warning.
Basically they assumed their users could read. They were wrong, people can’t read. So they have to scream it now.
“local Incognito” is some real mental gymnastics. If the witness protection program told people they’d help them go incognito, but only hid them from their own families and made it easy for strangers and enemies to find them, would you really consider that be what a reasonable interpretation?
Stop defending people who use shit like huge ToS docs and dark patterns to weasel out of deceptive marketing
Well yeah, that’s the only possible argument that the lawyer could even have.