I love Scott Hanselman's social media presence

Everyone likes to hate on social media for being toxic/polarizing, but, apparently it doesn't have to be this way

I stumbled on a rare, beautiful interaction on social media. I’d like to talk about it here and reflect on what I learned.

It starts with this scathing critique of Microsoft’s new “AI Recall” feature:

For those who aren’t aware, Microsoft have decided to bake essentially an infostealer into base Windows OS and enable by default

From the Microsoft FAQ: “Note that Recall does not perform content moderation. It will not hide information such as passwords or financial account numbers."

— Kevin Beaumont (mastodon)

His biggest point is that Microsoft said, “don’t worry, it’s safe! it’s all local, so an attacker would need to get physical access to your machine to steal it”

Kevin says this gives the users a false sense of safety, because it’s not true. The data is stored in a local DB on your computer. It’s just a file (and files can presumably be copied/accidentally shared/you can download malware that accesses it etc).

At some point he brings up a TikTok of a Microsoft employee trying to convince us that it is indeed all done locally so it is safe.

mastodon thread

At this point I notice that this is a video of Scott Hanselman. I know (of) that guy! He’s usually a voice of reason. So I was curious if he had a response to being called out like this.

I scroll down and I find it (emphasis mine):

I don’t work on the project but I find the NPU tech and the open SDKs behind it (and onyx runtime) interesting. My opinion is it should be not just opt-in but something you download explicitly and install if you want it. Similar to RescueTime and TimeSnapper and AugmenD and other apps that have done this stuff for years (using OCR). This should be as secure as your browser history, encrypted at rest, non roaming, etc.

— Scott Hanselman (mastodon)

Someone tells Scott they appreciate him answering honestly. He says:

We have nothing if we don’t have integrity

Someone tells him, yeah but we don’t trust microsoft, they’ve done so many shitty things to users in the past!!! And Scott says:

Agreed, sometimes we are emptying the ocean with a teaspoon. I will use my level privilege to advocate for the user as long as I’m here.

wow!

It could always be like this

Scott could have responded with something like “first of all, you’re taking my words out of context. I did NOT say xyz”. And he’d be right. But I see this kind of interaction all the time, and it’s rarely productive.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Scott instead chooses to focus on the common ground. Scott doesn’t take this criticism personally. That’s not the point. The point is that:

• Kevin cares about user privacy, and not misleading the public

• Scott cares about this too

They are on the same side on this point. Scott is defending the Microsoft feature, because he thinks it IS potentially genuinely useful. Scott sees a world where things can be better, where we can have the cool AI features, AND we can respect user’s data security and agency (making it opt-in).

Scott probably feels this more tangibly than others, being on the inside, being in the room. He has probably seen decisions made where, it could have been worse. He’s seen people make the right decisions. He’s seen engineers change their mind & implementation. He has tangible optimism.

I just love the way he talks, with this rare honesty & transparency that I didn’t even realize was an option, for me, as a software engineer at Big Tech. It feels like listening to a real person talk.

I think this is what I appreciate most about social media, when it work well.

I read this advice a while back and I think it completely changed my social media experience:

I wish people arguing on Twitter remembered that 100x more people read the exchange than the people involved in it.

Don't say: "you're dumb, not worth arguing with". Just explain why they're wrong. It doesn't matter if they won't get it. Address the audience, not them

I see a lot of arguments where I am still trying to form an opinion, and people refuse to engage, and I don’t understand why the bad thing is bad.

I know it’s hard to argue with people who are doing it in bad faith. But remember, it’s not the goal. And it’s not about you either. I’m not here to win arguments, I’m here to figure out (1) what steps can we take to craft a better world (2) if people are opposed to my solutions, what are their reasons? In this way, anyone mad or angry at me, is helping me shape this vision.

It can always collaborative.