That’s true, but there is another side to this same coin — people won’t do the right thing if it’s opt-in. Organ donation’s percentages are the two ends of the spectrum simply depending on opt-in/out.

I’m of course not comparing telemetry to organ donation, but I do feel that the problem is often overblown and is not that big of a deal. There is not much evil in trying to find out how many people used your toolings and from which OS approximately. (I dislike the Go language as much as it gets, so I am as unbiased as it gets)

> people won’t do the right thing if it’s opt-in

Yes they will. They'll leave it off, which is how it should be. ;)

You're right, of course, and your take is how "nudge theory", "trivial inconveniences" and low-key behavioral interventions are typically presented. I chose to use a phrasing biased towards the other end of the spectrum to highlight the "dark side" people often forgot about.

Now when I first learned about all this, I loved the organ donation and retirements plans examples - this all seemed like a brilliant hack to leverage human nature for greater good! However, my view on this flipped almost 180° over time. Two major reasons for this are:

1. Software industry. I actually deleted the long rant, because I have a specific, highly negative opinion of the business side of the industry - but we could debate that one all night, and it's not the main thing I want to say.

2. I actually brought the organ donation and retirement plan arguments up with family and friends, and was surprised by how much pushback I received in response. The specifics of each counter varied due to individual beliefs on those particular issues and politics in general, however the overall shape of the counterargument was always the same:

"I agree that having more people ${opting to donate organs, having a retirement plan} is good for everyone, and I understand there's a pool of people who don't make that choice simply because they never thought of it, don't care either way, or find opting in too difficult. Personally, ${I'm already signed up, I would consider signing up}.

However,

if they would do a trick like this to me, I would be angry. I have a right to be informed and make a choice on my own. This is denying me that choice, it's patronizing. If this was done to me, I would opt-out out of spite - in fact, just hearing now that people do this makes me want to not participate. After all, if it was all good-intentioned, they'd be up-front about it. Nudging with opt-outs smells like a scam."

Hell, a close family member said plainly to me that, hearing about this idea, they're now very skeptical about organ donation, and will no longer consider signing themselves up.

I tried to respond to people saying this. I tried to find a flaw in the overall spirit of their counter, tried to find a counter-counter of my own. But after many conversations, I instead found that I agree. On paper, opt-outs sound like super useful trick for doing good. In practice, they're predominantly used for bad, to exploit and abuse people. People know it, people feel it, and people also (even if irrationally) feel patronized by such attempts. As a result, even if you're 100% honest and well-intentioned with your opt-outs, whatever good you achieve this way comes at a cost of burning trust in the whole market/problem space.

The organ donation example now haunts me a little. Sure, signing people up by default may save lives in the short term - until enough people realize they haven't been given the respect and consideration that comes with decisions this big. Then those people will opt out, saying they've been used, and then others will follow, and then more people will die because of the bad reputation of the medical system wrt. organ donations.