According to Microsoft’s documentation, a user can only change the setting to enable or disable the new People section three times a year.

  • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I would assume that the “arbitrary limit” is actually based on something like the amount of processing power that it could take to go through every single photo/file that is uploaded.

    Anyway, even if it is arbitrary - what reason would anyone have to turn it on and off more than 3x a year? It’s something you’d decide you either want or you don’t.

    • Null User Object@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      what reason would anyone have

      That’s none of your business. You don’t need to know why anyone wants to do a thing to advocate for their freedom to do it.

      Just because you lack the imagination to think of reasons someone might have, doesn’t mean that they don’t have a perfectly good reason. But, they shouldn’t need to justify themselves to you.

      • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        The don’t have to justify themselves to me, they have to figure out how to handle only changing it 3 times a year.

        I’m trying to understand any reasons why someone would turn it on/off more than once. Not asking people to “justify”, just curious because it’s not something that makes sense to turn on and off multiple times.

        • Null User Object@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          You don’t need to know why anyone wants to do a thing to advocate for their freedom to do it.

          You don’t know why they might want to do this thing. I also don’t know why they would want to do this thing. The difference is, I 👏 Don’t 👏 Care 👏. My opinion of their reason to want to do it is irrelevant to my advocating their freedom to do it.

          And that’s all I’m going to say on the subject. If you can’t understand that basic fact, then I don’t know what else I can say.

          • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            I don’t care either though, I’m just asking why to try to understand the argument people like you are making.

            The feature is a yes/no option, and it has no downsides for the user. It costs you nothing, it doesn’t affect performance, it doesn’t need extra privacy permissions or anything. I’m just trying to understand why anyone works firstly turn it off if it defaults to on, and then secondly why they would then turn it back on, then back off, and so on. Maybe there’s something I am missing about it that I don’t know? Maybe there’s something buried in the fine print?

            Some when did trying to get more of an understanding become so offensive to some people?

            It’s like if my health insurance said “we’ve just added elective surgeries to your plan at no cost. You can opt out/in up to 3 times a year” - I genuinely can’t see a reason why anyone would opt out once, let alone 3+ times a year, and so far no one has even attempted to give a reason why anyone would.

            Unlike you, clearly, I like to learn things, especially about what makes people tick. I’m also a big believer in if you can’t explain your reasoning for your decision logically then you must have arrived at your decision illogically.