That computer is there for them to not do with as they please, as another poster mentioned.
Yes, there are a LOT of defaults people will just "go with" on the basis of path of least resistance. That does not absolve we programmers and software engineers to write well behaved, principled software that respects the sanctity of the user's digital sovereignty.
A computer is a tool, not a playground for the first person to throw code at it. Attitudes in the vein of your comment aren't uncommon, but that doesn't make them right.
The fact it has taken so long for technical literacy to get to where it is at is because most people have grown accustomed to the machine making decisions for them because it didn't occur to the programmer to present the option to think for themselves. Or, that saintly programmer wanted to, but got shot down in the name of UX and quick KPI boosts rather than creating an experience of the computer as a tool a user can do something with.
Yes, there are a LOT of defaults people will just "go with" on the basis of path of least resistance. That does not absolve we programmers and software engineers to write well behaved, principled software that respects the sanctity of the user's digital sovereignty.
A computer is a tool, not a playground for the first person to throw code at it. Attitudes in the vein of your comment aren't uncommon, but that doesn't make them right.
The fact it has taken so long for technical literacy to get to where it is at is because most people have grown accustomed to the machine making decisions for them because it didn't occur to the programmer to present the option to think for themselves. Or, that saintly programmer wanted to, but got shot down in the name of UX and quick KPI boosts rather than creating an experience of the computer as a tool a user can do something with.
So again, I beg to differ.