You can't really 'sacrifice' data. A more technically correct phrasing would be "I'm happy to reveal some data about me in return to get top notch search results".
But even that obscures the most important considerations: what does "some data" mean, and to whom are you revealing it? So if we make it a bit more verbose (but still keeping to the facts), it's more like: "I'm happy to reveal my browsing and purchasing history to unknown third parties, in unknown juristictions around the world, in order to get top notch search results." If you're happy to do make that trade, great, but I'd argue it's not such an obviously good deal as you make it sound.
You are wrong here, at least in my case. I feel very strongly that the NYT was wrong to dox Scott Alexander, and I cancelled my subscription over it. But I also downvoted the comment you are referring to, because I think it lowers the quality of the discussion and even weakens the argument against the NYT. See my other comment nearby for more explanation.
Upvoting/downvoting is not supposed to be used to express agreement/disagreement. It's about whether the comment contributes to the discussion. The comment from DarkWiiPlayer was very weak, especially in contrast to the original comment that it's replying to. It actually weakens the case against the NYT, by making unprovable assertions about their motives. That sort of emotional argument is very unlikely to convert anyone.
In contrast, the original comment (@zaptheimpaler) convincingly argues that the NYT has made a moral error in this case, regardless of where you stand on the ideological issues clouding it. It makes a strong argument by sticking to the facts, carefully avoiding appeals to emotion or bundled claims that could undermine the central point. That is what makes it such a good argument, and it's probably why it's the most upvoted comment here.
> Upvoting/downvoting is not supposed to be used to express agreement/disagreement
It is used that way by many people though. Downvoting out of disagreement is certainly something that happens on the internet.
> The comment from DarkWiiPlayer was very weak
Yes, the original comment already did a good job at presenting the case against the NYT. That wasn't really my intention.
> by making unprovable assertions about their motives
Well, yes, because it is simply impossible to make any provable assertion about anybodies motives. Unless you'd prefer judging actions without consideration for the actors motives (in which case there's no meaningful distinction between murder and a deadly accident), there will always be some degree of speculation about intent. In this case, there is two options: Either the NYT is utterly incompetent at basic text comprehension, or they deliberately lied about the opinions expressed on several blog posts. Assuming the NYT wouldn't have made it to where they are if they were so incompetent, there's only one possible conclusion: They intentionally spread lies with the goal of retaliatory defamation against a blogger that didn't dance to their music.
> It actually weakens the case against the NYT
Did I refute any of the arguments of the original comment? If not, then I couldn't possibly have weakened the case.
---
And what's more, your criticism only really addresses the first sentence in my comment.
The second sentence is just a moral judgement of the events. I shouldn't have to point out that this is my personal opinion, as an intelligent reader should just understand that implication.
My third point is: this behaviour ruins the reputation of journalism as a whole. I do consider the reasoning for this thought trivial. If you think it is fallacious, please point out why this is.
My last sentence, again, is simple because it's trivial. Trump is known to repeatedly call media liars on camera. The NYT article is misleading at best, and most would probably agree that it lied by omission in on several occasions. I also imply that I generally don't agree with these populists, hence the "the saddest part". That's two provable factual statements and one completely subjective opinion.
I don't think there's anything unreasonable about your feelings towards the NYT, and maybe if you'd expressed them in a standalone comment it might not have been downvoted. It's just you wrote your comment as a reply starting with "No," which could be taken as disagreeing with @zaptheimpaler's comment. And you seemed to be mainly calling for more outrage. The dispassionate approach was exactly what people liked about the @zaptheimpaler's comment, so your reply just seemed to miss the point. I don't know for sure, but that's my guess why some people downvoted your reply.
I would write back to them very politely, something like this:
Hello,
Thank you for your email. I initially reacted by pulling the extension, in fear of possible legal consequences. But on reflection I would like to propose a better solution.
There are hundreds of extensions that customise websites, in many cases to help 'power users', or to assist people with accessibility problems not provided for by the websites themselves. These extensions are often made by the websites' most avid users. A great example is the Refined GitHub extension, which GitHub itself has embraced as a proving ground and source of inspiration for new official features. [1][2]
That said, it is of course vital that people understand that such extensions are unofficial, and that they are unsupported and not endorsed by the website owner.
I would like to notify you of my intent to republish my extension with the changes outlined below, which I hope will satisfy your concerns.
• New extension title: "BetterSlack: Unofficial customizations for Slack"
• Modify store description to include an explicit warning that installation and use of the extension is at your own risk, and is not endorsed in any way by Slack, and that Slack offers no support for it.
In the interests of transparency I will publish all of our correspondence on my blog, as I think this is an important issue of interest to the wider community concerning the rights of individuals to control their own computers and customise their own experiences.
But even that obscures the most important considerations: what does "some data" mean, and to whom are you revealing it? So if we make it a bit more verbose (but still keeping to the facts), it's more like: "I'm happy to reveal my browsing and purchasing history to unknown third parties, in unknown juristictions around the world, in order to get top notch search results." If you're happy to do make that trade, great, but I'd argue it's not such an obviously good deal as you make it sound.