this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
616 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

73232 readers
4264 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I simply trust him enough

but what people are saying is it has little to do with trust: it’s a utility… in fact, the trust is flipped: i trust my partner to have my location, and only look at it for things like checking how far away i am for my benefit

It feels to me like if you need your partners location on tap, you must first have other problems

you’re allowed to feel that, but that’s absolutely not true. given the safety and utility aspect, it FEELS to me like if you don’t trust your partner to have and not abuse your location data then you must have other problems

[–] _g_be@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Seems like the underlying tension is wether being surveiled at all is inherently a violation.

If it is, then your partner doing it might feel like a lack of trust.

for my benefit Its not a benefit if you don't like being tracked

If not, then it's just a practical tool, might as well use the data if it's getting captured anyway.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

surveiled

surveillance implies active, constant, and surreptitious… i would not classify mutual location sharing as any of that: it’s passive, occasional, and well-known and consented to by both parties

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 1 points 17 hours ago

NO surveillance is truly constant, that would defeat the point of surveillance which is to create the ever present possibility that someone is watching so you begin to subconciously assume you are always being watched.

[–] _g_be@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If you're doing this through Google or whichever company is facilitating, then I would say that's the party doing all of the things listed.

But yes, I presented it in the context of just the two parties, so your point is still valid