I think any switch from opt-out-by-default to opt-in-by-default sucks, especially when it has no clear immediate benefit to the person being opted in.

Disclaimer: not a Claude user (not even a prospective one)

▲

latexr 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> any switch from opt-out-by-default to opt-in-by-default sucks

It’s the reverse. This was opt-in and is now opt-out. Opt means choose so when “the default is opt-in” it means the option is “no” by default and you have the option to make it “yes”.

▲

rkomorn 4 days ago | parent [-]

> they're now opt-out rather than opt-in to your data being used for training

This is what the comment I was replying to said. I took that to mean "you have to opt out (ie you're opted in by default)".

▲

stkdump 4 days ago | parent [-]

The meaning of the term "opt-in" is that it is off by default and has to be manually enabled. "opt-out" means it is on by default and you have to manually turn it off. "opt-in-by-default" or "opted in by default" are needlessly confusing.

	▲	rkomorn 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		True, yes. Totally agree with you on the fundamental definition of opt-in vs opt-out. You can also have a checkbox that says "I consent to having my data used for training", which would look like "opting in", and it could be true by default. Or you can have a checkbox that says "Leave my data out of your training set", which would look like "opting out", and which could be unchecked default. Technically, they're both "opt-out", but I've seen enough examples (intentionally confusing and arguably "dark patterns") that I personally don't really consider "it's opt-in" to be a complete statement anymore. Edit: I'll add that, in the comment I was replying to, it very much looked like you had to go to a settings page in order to opt-out, which I think is entirely reasonably described as having been opted-in by default. Here's what they had written: > All you have to do is flip a single switch in the options to turn it off And I actually think "opted-in by default" is valid and calls out cases where it looks like you consent, but that decision was made for you. Although in this case I think I've seen other comments that describe the UX differently, but my comment was more of a general comment than about this particular flow.

▲

currymj 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i think skepticism is healthy, but they've handled this in a fairer way than any other online product i've used before.

they gave me a popup to agree to the ToS change, but I can ignore it for a month and still use the product. In the popup, they clearly explained the opt-out switch, which is available in the popup itself as well as in the settings.

▲

some_random 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think it's good, but people both here and on reddit are acting like this is some Great Betrayal when it's just a single switch that they prominently present to you. If they're going to make this change, this is exactly how I'd want them to do it.

▲

latexr 4 days ago | parent [-]

> If they're going to make this change

Feels like the complaint is precisely that people don’t want them to make this change.

> this is exactly how I'd want them to do it.

Sees naive to believe it will always be done like this, especially for new users.

	▲	some_random 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		First off, I don't think going into the settings and flipping a toggle switch once is a huge burden on those who want to use a service privately. But more importantly, some of the comments here are so hysterical I have to assume that they read the title and jumped to the conclusion that you cannot opt out anymore without a business account.