John Carvell
My feedback
10 results found
-
11 votesJohn Carvell
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesJohn Carvell
supported this idea
·
-
22 votesJohn Carvell
supported this idea
·
-
1,516 votesJohn Carvell
supported this idea
·
-
255 votesJohn Carvell
supported this idea
·
-
161 votesJohn Carvell
supported this idea
·
-
312 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment John Carvell
supported this idea
·
-
329 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment John Carvell
commented
Given how systems like this are used already, I have to confess that I don't see the point. In theory, this is absolutely a great idea. In practice, however, the vast majority of the population is effectively tribalistic in its choice of platform; they either stick to only answering the phone for people that they know, to the point of utilizing software to block or filter all other callers, or they basically do not ever use their phones for calling and stick to Facebook and similar, with rare text messages to people (again) outside of their circles. The amount of times I've not been able to contact other random people because I don't use Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat is almost comical.
So, who actually ends up using these services? Sadly, spammers and scammers. What generally happens is that entire branches of cons use offices to get ranges of deactivated lines. When they call, it plucks one from the pool solely for the duration of that spam call, where it then goes back to being deactivated once the call is done, rendering it <on the surface> untraceable. While Google claims that few people on their Voice service are offenders, there is a reason that quite a few services and such out there refuse to accept VoiP services, including Google Voice.
So while it would be a cool option, in practice, what would be the legitimate benefit to having a masking service when things are already so far gone that you are required to give out a solid mobile phone number for more and more services?
John Carvell
supported this idea
·
-
453 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment John Carvell
commented
I mean, the obvious question here is "how could it be made better?" There are plenty of other things, even entire forks and services that provide phoneless signup, if that's an issue. As for integration, I still disagree. While they claim to champion privacy and security, and to be "an alternative to Big Tech", their entire rebuttal for the recent scandal implicating them as a potential honeypot is "nuh-uh, we don't share or harvest data", followed by the sudden ability and cash flow to establish multiple other services and systems after it died down. I've been too far invested to quit, and even as potential spies, it potentially is at least slightly better than having just another Microsoft or Google account.
Point is, while the utility would be nice, the sheer investment, effort, and potential avenues for abuse would be too great. They likely wouldn't consider it without some kind of <probably compromising> partnership.
John Carvell
supported this idea
·
-
288 votesJohn Carvell
supported this idea
·
I agree, this is a very important issue. Personally, even after trying out Lumo, I was so incredibly unimpressed that I just quit using it. Projects, management, deduction, even enhanced searching and summarizing; it failed every single test. This is not a surprise, however, as legitimate AI has not been publicly created yet, but it's still a nail in the coffin for what is effectively a data siphon.