They're doing as much of a bad thing as they think they can get away with. I don't feel a particular duty to carefully acknowledge that in some circumstances they feel obligated to do the right thing instead. If they don't like the "misleading" aspects of that, they're free to just do the right thing completely.

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

This may be controversial, but trying to collect the data of your free users to offset the costs of the infrastructure/resources needed to support the free users is not a bad thing - especially when you give those users an option to opt-out.

You make it sound like their goal is to do bad things. That's not true. Corporations are not good or evil, they are amoral. They don't care if what they are doing is good or bad - it just matters if they make money.

they're free to just do the right thing completely

What exactly would that entail?

[–] Mikina@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

For me, the issue isn't as much that they are forcing the data collection (on some/free people, to be clear).

I have issues with the way they are spending their development money, that I give them for the product. I don't care about the AI hype slop, that apparently can't even get good results (which they outright admit in the blogpost), instead of actually making the core features of the editor better. Everyone knows at this point it's a hype bubble that will never be usable, and they are grasping at straws.

I don't want to pay 200$ a year only for them to add a dumb chatbot and data collection into my IDE, or make the code completion dumber and random instead of actually being deterministic. So I don't, canceled my subscription and I'm sticking to the perpetual license while slowly switching to nvim. But I can still make fun of them about it. I have been recommending JetBrains products for most of my life, and they have disappointed me with the direction they are going, so I'll make sure to un-recommend it.

[–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The right thing is to make it opt-in for everyone, simple as that. The entire controversy goes away immediately if they do. If they really believe it's a good value proposition for their users, and want to avoid collecting data from people who didn't actually want to give it, they should have faith that their users will agree and affirmatively check the box.

If free users are really such a drain on them, why have they been offering a free version for so long before it became a conduit to that sweet, sweet data? Because it isn't a drain, it's a win-win. They want people using their IDE, even for free, they don't get money from it but they get market share, broad familiarity with their tool amongst software engineers, a larger user base that can support each other on third party sites and provide free advertising, and more.

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The right thing is to make it opt-in for everyone

How is that the right thing? I'm directly challenging this claim.

All I said was that free users cost them money, so it's reasonable for them to try to recover those costs. I never claimed that free users are a drain on them, so I won't even respond to the rest of your comment.

[–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Opt out means "we will be doing this, without permission, unless you tell us not to" and opt in means "if you give us permission we will do this." Codebases can contain important and sensitive information, and sending it off to some server to be shoved into an LLM is something that should be done with care. Getting affirmative consent is the bare minimum.

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 hours ago

I disagree about what the bare minimum is. It's not uninformed. They tell you about it, and tell you you can opt out. I don't really see how that would be them doing it without permission.