I know genomes and I didn’t delete my data from 23andMe

Overall reaction to the article

• Many readers find the piece unconvincing or even naive: it downplays risk without articulating concrete benefits of keeping data at 23andMe.
• Several conclude the opposite of the author’s stated goal: the article motivates them to delete their data.

Privacy framing and “whataboutism”

• The repeated argument “online tracking is worse, so don’t worry about DNA” is widely attacked as a fallacy (“not as bad as”).
• Commenters stress privacy is not either/or: one should resist all unnecessary data collection, not use other abuses as justification.
• The suggestion that incognito/private browsing meaningfully stops third‑party tracking is called factually wrong and damaging to credibility.

How informative 23andMe’s SNP data is

• The “0.02% of your genome” line is seen as misleading: those SNPs are specifically chosen because they are highly informative.
• Commenters note that such panels are enough to:
  • Uniquely identify people and link relatives,
  • Infer ancestry and minority status,
  • Sometimes reveal medically significant variants (e.g., BRCA1/2, enzyme defects, known pathogenic mutations).
• Some push back that commercial value has been overestimated, citing 23andMe’s financial troubles.

Law enforcement, authoritarian, and surveillance risks

• Multiple references to the Golden State Killer case and genealogical databases show DNA can already be used for mass identification via relatives.
• People worry about:
  • Future authoritarian regimes targeting minorities or dissidents,
  • Misuse by foreign governments or unregulated crime‑detection startups,
  • Scenarios where DNA is used as “God’s GUID” in pervasive surveillance.

Insurance, corporate behavior, and discrimination

• Strong concern that insurers and other gatekeepers (schools, landlords, employers) will eagerly use genomic data—especially junky or misapplied polygenic scores.
• Some argue insurers “cannot use” DNA currently and would simply mandate new testing if allowed; others respond that indirect/aggregate use or technical loopholes are very plausible.
• Core distrust: companies change terms, sell data, get hacked, or repurpose samples without meaningful consent.

Uniqueness, permanence, and family impact

• Three key differences vs browsing data:
  • DNA is immutable and can’t be “rotated” or fuzzed;
  • Your relatives’ submissions can implicate you;
  • It can encode ethnicity or other sensitive group membership.
• Thus, sharing DNA is framed as a one‑way, multi‑generational privacy loss.

Benefits of keeping or sharing data

• Modest direct benefits cited: updated trait/health reports, cousin matching, genealogy network effects.
• A few users report real medical insights from 23andMe data, and others value large biobanks (e.g., UK resources) for advancing science.
• However, many note the article fails to show why this company retaining your data is worthwhile, especially since you can download and reuse it elsewhere.

Practical conclusions in the thread

• Strong plurality leans toward: download data, request deletion, and assume deletion may be imperfect but is still worth signaling and reducing exposure.
• Minority view: if you’re already relaxed about data sharing, genomic data used for bona fide research might be preferable to ad‑tech–style behavioral profiling.