6 ms·

They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine. The phrases "opt in" and "opt out" will always be contextual

They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine. The phrases "opt in" and "opt out" will always be contextual based on what is being opted, so it really falls to the reader to pay attention to that context. Please don't give English language advice as though you are an authority; there is not a rule of the English language that would make their usage unacceptable.

mikebenfield 15d ago
I find the usage bizarre and confusing, as others also clearly do. There’s nothing wrong with pointing this out.
F3nd0 15d ago
Since the whole idea of ‘opt in’ is choosing to do something, the only reasonable interpretation of ‘opt in by default’ is that the default state requires you to make the choice yourself. However I try to bend my brain, sing the term ‘opt in’ for the exact opposite makes no sense whatsoever. Note that I’m not using English grammar as my argument; human language (and English especially) has plenty of exceptions and expressions which make little sense, and if people were to adopt this phrasing en masse, it would naturally become a part of the language, whether it makes sense or not. My argument is that adopting this phrasing is a terrible, user-hostile decision and in my honest opinion we really, really, really ought to avoid it.
- PotatoPrime 14d ago
  I read it as though he was trying to say '[you are] opt[ed] in by default'. Now granted, he did not say that, and I only reached that conclusion by the rest of this conversation, but I think to have meant that and said '... was now also opt-in by default...' isn't unreasonable. Just sharing since you mentioned you couldn't see how using that term for the opposite would make sense.
  - Timon3 14d ago
    Even read this way, it doesn't make logical sense. It's a great example of newspeak - corporations know people use "opt-in" as a purchasing signal, so they're trying to redefine the word by abusing it enough times. "Opting someone else in" is essentially the same category of error as "consenting for someone else". People can only consent for others in specific circumstances and even then only for specific people (e.g. legal guardians), trying to argue "but I consented for them!" in front of a judge usually ain't gonna work.
  - F3nd0 14d ago
    Thank you. However, assuming you mean ‘an affirmative choice is made for you’ when you say ’you are opted in’, that use really takes the ‘opt’ out of the ’opt-in’. You can opt in, but you can’t have someone else ‘opt you in’ for you; that seems to go against the very core meaning of ‘opt-in’ (i.e. having to explicitly choose something yourself). In other words, you can explicitly choose something by yourself, but if other people (in this case companies, service providers) choose something for you, it’s no longer your explicit decision made by yourself. Hence why I believe we can’t consider that ‘opting in’.
- KPGv2 14d ago
  Here's the dictionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opt-in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opt-in > The property of having to choose *explicitly* to join or permit something; a decision having the *default option being exclusion or avoidance*; used particularly with regard to mailing lists and advertising. You're just using the term wrong. That's okay, I've used words wrong before, and it just means you've been presented an opportunity for learning a new fact. But there's no argument to be had except with the dictionary.
  - F3nd0 14d ago
    My use seems to be perfectly in line with the given dictionary definition, though? Did you perhaps mean to address a different comment?
TulliusCicero 14d ago
> They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine. No, it's really not. It should read "opted in to training on prompts by default". "Opt in" means "you have to affirmatively turn this thing on". "Opted in" means "the thing is currently enabled". Which is why it's probably better to write it as "enabled by default". Much harder to misinterpret.
- deleted 14d ago
  [deleted]
KPGv2 14d ago
> They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine "Opt in" and "by default" are contradictory phrases. They mean literally the opposite of each other. The only reason it's coherent is that most native speakers will elect to believe "by default" was used correctly because it's the easier to use term. > there is not a rule of the English language that would make their usage unacceptable I think you're using emotionally inflammatory language, possibly unintentionally. no one is refusing to accept what they wrote. That being said, the way they used "opt in" is categorically wrong. It's the opposite of the dictionary definition. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opt-in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opt-in > The property of having to choose explicitly to join or permit something; a decision having the default option being exclusion or avoidance; used particularly with regard to mailing lists and advertising.

mikebenfield 15d ago

I find the usage bizarre and confusing, as others also clearly do. There’s nothing wrong with pointing this out.

F3nd0 15d ago

Since the whole idea of ‘opt in’ is choosing to do something, the only reasonable interpretation of ‘opt in by default’ is that the default state requires you to make the choice yourself. However I try to bend my brain, sing the term ‘opt in’ for the exact opposite makes no sense whatsoever. Note that I’m not using English grammar as my argument; human language (and English especially) has plenty of exceptions and expressions which make little sense, and if people were to adopt this phrasing en masse, it would naturally become a part of the language, whether it makes sense or not. My argument is that adopting this phrasing is a terrible, user-hostile decision and in my honest opinion we really, really, really ought to avoid it.

PotatoPrime 14d ago
I read it as though he was trying to say '[you are] opt[ed] in by default'. Now granted, he did not say that, and I only reached that conclusion by the rest of this conversation, but I think to have meant that and said '... was now also opt-in by default...' isn't unreasonable. Just sharing since you mentioned you couldn't see how using that term for the opposite would make sense.
- Timon3 14d ago
  Even read this way, it doesn't make logical sense. It's a great example of newspeak - corporations know people use "opt-in" as a purchasing signal, so they're trying to redefine the word by abusing it enough times. "Opting someone else in" is essentially the same category of error as "consenting for someone else". People can only consent for others in specific circumstances and even then only for specific people (e.g. legal guardians), trying to argue "but I consented for them!" in front of a judge usually ain't gonna work.
- F3nd0 14d ago
  Thank you. However, assuming you mean ‘an affirmative choice is made for you’ when you say ’you are opted in’, that use really takes the ‘opt’ out of the ’opt-in’. You can opt in, but you can’t have someone else ‘opt you in’ for you; that seems to go against the very core meaning of ‘opt-in’ (i.e. having to explicitly choose something yourself). In other words, you can explicitly choose something by yourself, but if other people (in this case companies, service providers) choose something for you, it’s no longer your explicit decision made by yourself. Hence why I believe we can’t consider that ‘opting in’.
KPGv2 14d ago
Here's the dictionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opt-in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opt-in > The property of having to choose *explicitly* to join or permit something; a decision having the *default option being exclusion or avoidance*; used particularly with regard to mailing lists and advertising. You're just using the term wrong. That's okay, I've used words wrong before, and it just means you've been presented an opportunity for learning a new fact. But there's no argument to be had except with the dictionary.
- F3nd0 14d ago
  My use seems to be perfectly in line with the given dictionary definition, though? Did you perhaps mean to address a different comment?

TulliusCicero 14d ago

> They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine. No, it's really not. It should read "opted in to training on prompts by default". "Opt in" means "you have to affirmatively turn this thing on". "Opted in" means "the thing is currently enabled". Which is why it's probably better to write it as "enabled by default". Much harder to misinterpret.

deleted 14d ago
[deleted]

KPGv2 14d ago

> They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine "Opt in" and "by default" are contradictory phrases. They mean literally the opposite of each other. The only reason it's coherent is that most native speakers will elect to believe "by default" was used correctly because it's the easier to use term. > there is not a rule of the English language that would make their usage unacceptable I think you're using emotionally inflammatory language, possibly unintentionally. no one is refusing to accept what they wrote. That being said, the way they used "opt in" is categorically wrong. It's the opposite of the dictionary definition. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opt-in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opt-in > The property of having to choose explicitly to join or permit something; a decision having the default option being exclusion or avoidance; used particularly with regard to mailing lists and advertising.