Talk:Opt-out

Relevance

Do we need an article for this? It's self-explanatory and it's meaning doesn't inherently change in the context of consumer rights. Beanie Bo (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I personally think for the sake of having theme articles as building blocks for incidents, this can definitely stay. It is self-explanatory but from what I understand, if we wanted to base an incident article on opt-out being violated, this would be great for it to have. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a theme article seems useful. I don't think it is self explanatory. The content that was here didn't even mention opt-in vs. opt-out (and how opt-in is often better for consumer protection issues.) (Pretty much anything many companies make opt-out should be opt-in (like selling my data), and anything they voluntarily make opt-in (like digital coupons) should be opt-out.) Drakeula (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that having this as a theme article is useful and relevant to the wiki. "Opt-out" is self-explanatory in that it is removal from participation, but the article isn't just about the dictionary definition - it's about how it applies in the context of consumer rights. Although the article needs plenty of work, it's worth keeping. Changing the irrelevancy tag to stub. — Sojourna (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Opt-in

I redirected opt-in here (since they are related concepts.) Drakeula (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)