25 ms·

Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

423 points by dnetesn 9y ago

jasonvorhe 9y ago
Isn't this rhetoric getting tiresome at some point?
- iamdave 9y ago
  The conversation at the root? Not so much. But yeah the rhetoric and seeming lack of nuance around it makes me roll my eyes from time to time. Edit: instead of driveby downvotes, Id welcome some commentary on what was so incendiary about this remark to warrant swiftly taking the comment down into the negatives.
- fareesh 9y ago
  This has been a long time coming. https://twitter.com/georgesoros/status/964471195793068032 https://twitter.com/georgesoros/status/964471195793068032 I posted about it here, but was heavily downvoted because mentioning this man automatically brands you as a conspiracy theorist. It's really naive to think he doesn't know the news before it's news.
  - r3bl 9y ago
    It's really naive to think that this only became news in 2018. It's rather obvious that both Facebook and Google are conglomerates that know way more then they should about us. That has been the case since at least 2012. There's nothing newsworthy about that.
basicplus2 9y ago
Its a bit like saying.. is getting smashed in the face with a brick really as scary as getting getting smashed in the face with a rock?
kbaker 9y ago
The one time Betteridge's Law fails us. > Chollet bristled at this. “This is the laziest kind of thinking—just because two things share some superficial similarity (they’re large tech [companies]) doesn’t mean they’re equivalent,” he said. But... the article is just a riff off of Chollet's tweets about working for Alphabet. Mostly about Facebook anyways.
- iamdave 9y ago
  I too had thoughts of Betteridge but in the opposite: it definitely applies and he article gives us a few examples. But after a second read of the article I think the answer instead of being a flat "no", the answer would probably be more accurately answered with "depends on who you're asking"
jugad 9y ago
I don't know the nuanced answer but overall Google seems less irritating, and less fake (because G+ failed)?
- rootusrootus 9y ago
  And they don't have Zuckerberg. Seriously, though, I think some of it is that Google is a little more transparent. They ingest tremendous amounts of data about you, but for the most part it's while you do things you would otherwise do. Facebook is a destination, an environment unto itself, and it's impossible to ignore that it's addictive and sucking you in over and over. So you use it, but hate it all the same because it has too much power. I've looked at the data Google collects on me, and it's probably more frightening than what FB has managed to gather. Google has all my search queries to look at, every place I've driven, etc. All without me really noticing.
greggarious 9y ago
It's a lot simpler to avoid Google though. I've been using DuckDuckGo for a while now and the switch was simple. There's no network effect like with Facebook, hence less ennui about it.
- mudil 9y ago
  They still have their cookies and follow your every move, especially if you have android phone.
  - ReverseCold 9y ago
    Note about Google-Android phones: how long you use each app and when is tracked. To avoid this, use a custom rom without GApps. You can also "turn off" this "feature" from some menu online, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't actually stop data collection.
- gt_ 9y ago
  >seems Google is just more self-aware, which can change at any time. This is separate from their potential, and the potential is what matters here. We know Facebook had the potential to do damage for years, but we don't know how much damage they have done. As for what a company "seems", that is a sum of marketing and PR.
- smt88 9y ago
  Google is also tracking you via emails sent to/from Gmail, AdSense scripts, free CDNs, Android, etc. I find Facebook to be easier to avoid, though more costly in terms of my happiness
- dijit 9y ago
  I feel like this is at least slightly disingenuous. Sure, your friends keep you hooked on FB but there are other methods of communication.. Even if they're FB owned (like whatsapp). But google owns the most dominant browser right now, they're spidered into most websites using their analytics engine. They handle more email than the next 5 providers combined, and they have the most dominant mobile OS on the market.
sykh 9y ago
What is scary is the unregulated way in which massive amounts of data can be used to sway public opinion so easily. What is even scarier than this is the way in which those in power can use massive amounts of data to sway public opinion without oversight. The very notion of a republican form of government may end up needing to be reanalyzed. Forget concentrating on Google or Facebook. There is a larger concern. If multi-national company A collects massive amounts of data and sells it to company B to use to influence elections in country C then in what way are C's people in control of their government? Especially if A and B are based in another country.
- delbel 9y ago
  I was trying to come up with a solution. Something like retroactively classify companies that are taking money or are involved in this type of stuff register as a Political Action Committee. Because this is regulated by the FEC. Make Google, CNN, Facebook, Fox, whatever, disclose they are working for hire to politicize your experience. Then, make it so that every 5 years a company can appeal this retro-active PAC status. When they appeal they have to show, in full transparency, that they are no longer participating in these schemes by showing internal procedures, logs, their appeal process, and comments from the public. Somebody make this idea better and help promote it. It's a start
  - taurath 9y ago
    I’ve always thought that a way to get this passed would be to tell the public that you’d be effecting whichever the other sides media is. For conservatives that’d be restricting cnn, msnbc, etc and for liberals that’d be Fox News brietbart etc. People hate the other side more than they love their side I find.
    - TaylorAlexander 9y ago
      But those news agencies would be committing suicide if they supported this, so none of them would promote that message.
    - droidist2 9y ago
drawkbox 9y ago
Your ISP tracking your every move is scarier than all of them after the ISP privacy bill passed. At least Facebook and Google give you something for it and you can route around them if you desire. No routing around ISPs unless you use a VPN but even then they are blocking those. Broadband/cable/telcos capture everything you do and can now sell that information and do[1]. That bill was the pre-cursor to removing net neutrality by taking privacy and policy from the FCC to the FTC. Part of Jeff Flakes argument for getting rid of the privacy protections were so that ISPs can compete with Facebook and Google and sell your data/offer ads to you. Yet Facebook and Google at least built products you wanted that you willingly gave up privacy to use and at least got something for it [2][3]. ISPs you have to pay to use and they still take your data as if you are the product. ISPs could have built products people wanted to get that data but they instead bribed 'representatives' to get it via legislation with their local monopolies. Noone wanted this bill but ISPs. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-you... [2] https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-for-the-wall-street-journal https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-f... [3] https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/flake-introduces-resolution-to-protect-consumers-from-overreaching-internet-regulation https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/flake-i...
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > they are blocking those Do any American ISPs routinely Blick VPNs?
  - drawkbox 9y ago
    Not outright but they definitely mess with VPNs. Before net neutrality Cox for instance blocked VPNs quite a bit [1], they are holding off for now, but with net neutrality gone expect it to return. Now that they have to inspect traffic for slow lanes, they'll just put VPNs throttled down at a minimum. > 2003—Cox and Comcast block VPNs: Back in the early internet, both Comcast and Cox Communications placed bans on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). This was before VPNs became as ubiquitous as they are now. Back then, the only people who really used VPNs were doing so to access a work computer remotely. Which made Cox and Comcast’s choices to block them even weirder. [1] https://lifehacker.com/what-happens-when-broadband-companies-self-regulate-1794710098 https://lifehacker.com/what-happens-when-broadband-companies...
Malarkey73 9y ago
I know Google is profiling me and harvesting my data. But it's not using me to harvest my friends information. I know Google is targeting ads at me - and they maybe AB tested. But those ads are from real companies or organisations - they aren't fake bots or astroturf groups algorithmically designed to tell me what I want to hear. I'm sceptically watchful of Google, I feel I have a social contract with them where they use me and I use them. I think Facebook has way overstepped that mark.
- throwaway84742 9y ago
  >> But it's not using me to harvest my friends information Of course. It already has your friends’ information.
  - eat_veggies 9y ago
    And your friends agreed to it, same as you. That's the difference.
    - futhey 9y ago
      Doesn't this also apply to Facebook? Maybe you could argue it's not current data, but at some point Facebook reached ubiquity, and collected enough data to make sophisticated inferences about everyone.
    - throwaway84742 9y ago
      Not necessarily. Address book access rights on Android and iOS are a gray area. I don’t have control over whether you hand over my contact info to whoever you want. So are incoming emails from outside Gmail, and a bunch of other things. So is tracking of accounts that aren’t even logged into anything, and demographic inference on top of that, etc, etc. I mean we are literally talking about a company that tracks the entirety of the web, and has an overwhelming share of people’s email, search, and video history. You’d have to be unbelievably naive to think that this information can’t be abused. That’s not to say Google currently abuses it, but some of the ads stuff is way into the gray area territory imo, and god help us all if they decide to get evil for real.
AlexCoventry 9y ago
Google is scarier in terms of its capabilities, but it's starting from a more solid ethical foundation.
- a_imho 9y ago
  it's starting from a more solid ethical foundation What do you base this on?
- s2g 9y ago
  No, it's starting from a foundation of loudly yelling about not being evil in order to distract from their evil behaviour.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  I feel like this is a piece that people elide pretty frequently. The Google founders have spoken about tons of things over the years, and consistently come across as being principled and passionate, even if your moral foundation is different from theirs. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, set the tone with the "dumb fucks" IM and has only recently gotten better at not projecting contempt for his users. I honestly couldn't even pin down what his ethical foundations are, given that they seem to swing with the tides of public opinion and what PR message is currently convenient ("connect the whole world! every interaction is a good one!" --> the more recent "maybe some social interactions are bad, only 'good' ones from now on!"). It's of course entirely possible that this simply means that the Google guys are better at personal PR than Facebook is, but at the very least it helps explain why the perception of each is different.
  - aylmao 9y ago
    Mark Zukerberg has a foundation with his wife, and they have vowed to donate 99% of their net worth to it [1]. This is Bill and Melinda Gates level; they also pledged to donate the vast majority of their wealth (95%). Sergey cheated on his wife with a Google employee (who was like 20 years younger and dating another executive) and got a widely publicized divorce [2]. We don't have transcripts for Sergey and Page, but how do we know they didn't also think their users were "dumb fucks", or weren't nice people in college? I am of the opinion that to become a billionaire you have to step on a lot of people; I am not one to think that Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are moral guides for anyone, and this very much applies to Page and Brin too. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Chan_(philanthropist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Chan_(philanthropist... [2]: http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/entertainment/life-after-a-cheating-google-tycoon-ex http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/entertainment/life-aft... EDIT: > I honestly couldn't even pin down what his ethical foundations are, given that they seem to swing with the tides of public opinion and what PR message is currently convenient Two points on this: 1. Google's mission is to "organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful". What's the "ethical foundation" behind that? Do we know this will make the world a better place? "Useful" for whom? 2. Both Google and Facebook are advertising companies. They optimize to sell ads.
product50 9y ago
If FB goes down for one day it is a minor inconvenience. If Google goes down for one day, I am literally at a standstill. No Maps, no Search, no GMail, no YouTube, no Photos! I don't know how I will get through the day without these services :( As such, with Google, I am more than ok them using my data to target me ads since it does feel a mutually beneficial relationship.
- lucb1e 9y ago
  > As such, with Google, I am more than ok them using my data Woah, that was a very different conclusion than I was expecting. The post builds up to how terribly dependent you are, but concludes with "so I'm very happy". I see your reasoning and your point, but don't forget what kind of relation this is (where you pay very little to nothing for most services, money-wise...).
  - product50 9y ago
    I am happy to pay them money or pay with data. Choose your thing. We can't just keep on operating in a world where everything is free and we don't want targeted ads. And I never used "I'm so very happy". This is where biases come in. My goal was to say that Google services are very useful (to me) and I am ok if in return I have to give them my data.
    - draggnar 9y ago
      I'm very happy to pay them, just like a utility.
      - product50 9y ago
        That makes sense. I will do it as well if advertising wasn't a model. In some ways, YouTube already allows that with Red. I wonder how many people are like you though outside the tech forums and especially in developing countries (where a lot of the users for US based tech companies come from).
      - 9y ago
thriftwy 9y ago
You can also dump it and not miss a beat. Much harder to do with Google. Facebook is thoroughly non-essential.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  Tell that to people with Android phones. Google Play Services is an opaque blob that cannot be uninstalled and is necessary for nearly all Android apps. And it is constantly uploading your location minute-by-minute to Google for use in things like their "Popular Times" card on search results and who knows what else.
  - garaetjjte 9y ago
    Google location services can be disabled. And there is open Play Services reimplementation, microG.
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    When you set up an Android phone you have the option of not using Google Services. Secondly, you can disable Google Play Services anytime you want. You can also turn off location history and tracking anytime you want so I'm not sure where you get the idea that none of these services or apps can be turned off or disabled.
    - jonathanyc 9y ago
      I am not sure what comment you think you are replying to. Google Play Services cannot be uninstalled on a stock Android phone, like I said, only disabled; and disabling it means the vast majority of Android apps won’t work, like I said. These are facts that anyone can verify for themselves; you merely claiming otherwise doesn’t change this. You also seem to be confusing Google’s various services with Google Play Services specifically.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        You can, however, disable the location tracking across your device pretty easily, or even just disable location history if you want other tools to be able to use your location. Yes, disabling core features of your device results in a worse user experience, this should not come as a surprise.
golemiprague 9y ago
Every little stupid app is harvesting your phone whether it is facebook or not. Most people don't care that much about giving permissions and as a developer I have seen millions of people letting apps stealing their most valuable data including text messages, documents, basically anything on their phone. This whole thing blew up because they helped Trump, simple as that, if it wasn't Trump you wouldn't hear about it.
dudul 9y ago
The main difference from my point of view, as a Google and a non-Facebook user, is that Google actually provides useful services. From GMail, to Maps, Drive, etc. Facebook (as I see it at least) provides zero value. It creates toxic echo-chambers and countless studies have proven again and again that it makes people miserable.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Facebook provides a ton of a value to lots of people. In many cases its their entire social circle and how they communicate with them. Just because it doesn't create value for you or I doesn't mean it creates value.
  - dudul 9y ago
    I knew somebody would say that. And that's why my comment is sprinkled with "IMO", "from my point of view" etc. Now, is it really a good service to help people manage their "social circle" in this manner? Not according to me.
s2g 9y ago
No. Both are awful companies. I'm sick to death of the Silicon Valley conglomerates built on the back of siphoning data for ad companies.
paulie_a 9y ago
One of the few times a headline ends with a question mark the obvious answer is in fact: "yes" Google is evil. Facebook is worse.
- libdjml 9y ago
  I know I have an unexplainable bias toward seeing google as inherently positive to society, so I’m keen to hear what makes you think google is evil?
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    I don't agree that collecting private data is "inherently positive to society" considering the result is low quality advertising
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    They intentionally design their products in such a way that puts their user's privacy and security in danger, by not putting the user in control of their own data. By using Advertising as the basis for their business, they have encouraged a huge race to the bottom for other online services. They also tie themselves unnecessarily into other parts of the web, and degrade the experience in efforts to consolidate power for themselves.
- Sylos 9y ago
  I disagree. Facebook is just less clever about being evil. Google instead looms in every corner that remains too complicated for most people to understand and quietly harvests data. And the article really does a piss-poor job at trying to pursue its question. Heck, most of it is directly quoting the opinion of a Google engineer.
Ivoirians 9y ago
Disclaimer: I work for Google and these views are only my opinion, etc. From my perspective, Google's goals are aligned with improving the world by offering information services. Search, Gmail, Maps, Translate, basically all of the Other Bets, etc.--it's easy to imagine that the people behind them are more concerned with impact on the world than on generating profit or consolidating Google's power. To me, Facebook has no such world-improving aspirations. The extent to which I'm aware of Facebook's attempt to improve the world was the initiative to bring free internet to India, which was perceived as a play to lock more people into Facebook. Plus, I keep seeing studies of how increased Facebook usage correlates negatively with peoples' moods, so Zuckerberg's evident goal of "get everyone on Earth on Facebook" feels gross. Things obviously aren't just this black and white, and both companies collect user data in order to generate buckets of advertising wealth (which, if you find disagreeable, probably biases you against both companies), but from a personal perspective, I'm quite happy working for Google while I don't think you could pay me enough to work for Facebook.
- pnloyd 9y ago
  A lot of people seem to default to a really cynical view of tech businesses. I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life easier. This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many people hold is getting kinda old. Giving them your data is the price you pay for their service. If this doesn't seem fair to you then find an alternative. Enough of this scary business. Maybe with the Equifax and Cambridge analytica incidents the broader public will start thinking about privacy more seriously. And in turn companies may start pushing privacy assurances as selling points. (Just reaching for a bit of optimism in these unnerving circumstances, I don't like it either)
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life easier. I've never understood how people can have such a religious-like faith in a corporation they have never seen the inside of and in which they know not a single person who works there. Gullibility perhaps? >This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many people hold is getting kinda old. Do you care at all about security? Because that is the fundamental assumption behind taking any security precaution whatsoever in life, whether it's putting a lock on your door or not trusting a faceless corporation with billions of the most detailed psychological profiles in history.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
xkcd-sucks 9y ago
Maybe, maybe not. But, it would be a wasted opportunity not to kill Facebook right now because the political will of the resist-trump crowd makes the attempt more likely to succeed.
- aylmao 9y ago
  Yet the argument could be made that without Facebook, the duopoly on online advertising could become a monopoly by Google. They'd definitely hop in and try at a social network again too. They have your voice, your live location, your email, your texts, your photos including a model of your face, your search history, your youtube viewing preferences, and they wouldn't miss the chance to hop in for your social graph and "likes" too.
kaonashi 9y ago
Not at all; Google is every bit as scary. Together the two companies have sucked all the profit out of publishing.
zitterbewegung 9y ago
They are both equally scary but Facebook has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and now everyone is aware of it. Note , I am not claiming that Google will be caught doing this.
mattlondon 9y ago
If you use FB, you have to be logged in and actively engaged by you providing your identity to use it. Google can be used without logging in or tracking. That is the critical difference for me - to use Facebook you have to actively be part of the social graph and share your identity. Google wants you to sign in, but you don't have to (apart from Gmail etc) To block tracking from most people you can: * Block third party cookies in your browser. * Use DuckDuckGo. * Block ads. * Use a VPN (to get differing IP addresses). This will neuter 99% of tracking approaches that rely on cookies, IP matching, purchase history, or being logged in. For Google and others too. Some will use more exotic approaches to tracking (e.g. canvas fingerprints) but there is a browser extension arms race to handle that. The first 3 of those things take 90 seconds to do once then forget about and never deal with again. It's not hard. VPNs are more commitment and come with their own problems, but add some extra obfuscation. If you don't want to use android then obviously you can get another phone. Firefox is viable again these days. There are fewer and fewer excuses for this attitude - Google is not inescapable IMO, but you cannot escape Facebook if you want to use it. It just comes down to how much you care and how much you value their services - you might need to ask yourself some hard questions about what you really value and what you are prepared to go without before complaining about how these companies are run in order to offer you free services. (views are my own opinion) edit: perhaps I wasn't clear: ad blockers and/or disallowing third party cookies will prevent Facebook like buttons (or tracking pixels from other parties) from tracking you as effectively, especially if you cycle your IP addresses with a VPN. You just look like a totally different user each time.
- partiallypro 9y ago
  Not entirely true. Facebook, like Google, has tracking pixels on pretty much every site now. I find Google and Facebook both to be fairly terrifying in their immense power. I also fear Amazon, I used to be an avid Amazon shopper, but now I try to go out of my way to not use them if I can help it. I never thought I'd live to see companies like Apple and Microsoft being more of the good guys than their competitors (relatively speaking.)
- m_ke 9y ago
  Facebook tracks everyone that comes across a page with a like button. They also purchase data from 3rd parties https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/30/facebook-buys-data-on-users-offline-habits-for-better-ads/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/30/facebook-buys-data-on-us...
aylmao 9y ago
Google has a profile of my voice solid enough that they're comfortable making it an authentication option in Android. They have microphones in millions of homes and millions more on people's pockets, which are by the way also tracking live location and a myriad of other data. Yikes.
whatyoucantsay 9y ago
Facebook is ethically bankrupt, but their power is much more limited. Google is nothing less than the greatest threat to humanity. Trump, North Korea, militant Islam and Putin all pale in comparison to what Google is capable of. Only Xi's increasingly nationalist and modernized China is capable of remotely the same kind of threat, but Google has a huge lead in military robotics and will probably reach the AI tipping point first. They have been a beautifully gilded trojan horse, beloved in the beginning, but in the end most of humanity will likely regret having given away so much to Google.
bitmapbrother 9y ago
Is Microsoft scarier than Google? Unlike Google, Microsoft tracks and profiles you online via their search engine and through all of the "telemetry" Windows sends back to them. Also, doesn't Microsoft operate their Azure cloud service in China that is run by a Chinese state run company?
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  > Unlike Google, Microsoft tracks and profiles you online via their search engine Citation seriously needed. “Unlike Google?” Who are you trying to kid?
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    Are you seriously suggesting that Bing doesn't track users? Who are you trying to kid. Microsoft is able to recognize the same user across devices by using an anonymous identifier (MSID). The MSID is used to describe a persistent unique identifier used by Microsoft Advertising to deliver targeted ads and recognize the same user across devices and Microsoft services. Customers have a choice to opt out of targeted advertisements that use the MSID by visiting http://choice.microsoft.com/en-us/opt-outand http://choice.microsoft.com/en-us/opt-outand turning off the control that says “Personalized Ads Wherever I use my Microsoft Account” https://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-launches-universal-event-tracking-206467 https://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-launches-universal-eve...
    - jonathanyc 9y ago
      What on Earth? My comment takes issue with your claim that Bing is “unlike Google.” Google’s privacy policy explicitly allows them to use queries for advertising, not “unlike Bing.” Why are you trying to paint Microsoft as exceptional here? > We use the information we collect from all of our services to provide, maintain, protect and improve them, to develop new ones, and to protect Google and our users. We also use this information to offer you tailored content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads. https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/#infouse https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/#infouse
maxxxxx 9y ago
They are both scary enough to limit both of them. I don't think we should choose one or the other.
tzakrajs 9y ago
Forget scary. Let's talk about utility. Facebook gives you distraction but Google gives you information (YouTube, Google Search, GMail, Maps, Voice, Fiber, Project Fi, etc) and is more restrictive about how it lets partners use its platform to interact with users.
- libdjml 9y ago
  This 100% Google build genuinely useful products, and use the knowledge it gains about you to show (generally somewhat useful) ads, and generally stays out of your way. Facebook on the other hand desperately tries to manipulate you into consuming as much time as possible on their platform at almost any cost, using lowest common denominator tricks.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    I agree with everything you said except for "generally stays out of your way." Try blocking all Google domains via a hosts file, and you'll see that they have put their hooks into all kinds of systems, and do so in ways that seriously impede how normal web-pages should function.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    It's just kind of a false choice. I use FB to keep in touch and chat with friends, find out about local events, follow various interesting people, etc. google tried to do the same thing with Google Plus and failed. But I certainly don't feel manipulated by FB, I feel they are providing me with a useful service.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  YouTube suggesting extremist videos to people in order to maximize views is giving you “information”? Can we stop pretending Google is somehow more useful to the average person than Facebook?
  - kimdcmason 9y ago
    .
digitalantfarm 9y ago
I hear so many people talking about this like there's literally no way about going around these issues. Is it that unimaginable to use an alternative search engine like DuckDuck go? To use tor? To use a VPN? To disable javascript? To block ads? To put some IPs in your /etc/hosts? To use OpenOffice instead of Google Docs and MS Office? To use Proton Mail instead of Gmail? These products even have nice user interfaces these days! Privacy isn't that hard. These companies offer a service for free (mostly). If you can't do it, I think it's mostly because you just don't care.
- projektir 9y ago
  Maybe because you're not convincing the average person to use those services anytime soon, and that is who matters.
gerash 9y ago
I personally prefer Google over FB. I haven't deleted my FB account because that's my contact list of some sort but I am not very active. I guess I prefer the Snapchat model where what you post doesn't stick around forever. I'm not fond of the aggressive, greedy bro attitude of FB in moving fast and breaking things. On the other hand I use Google services all the time. Folks whining about data collection should realize Google hasn't decided to be an ad company, it's just they have succeeded monetizing it better than their more recent cloud offering and in future their hardware business. So it's not an ad company because it does everything top down based on what would make ad business succeed. It's just that the search product is popular and placing ads next to it pays well. If you're complaining about seeing ads and are not using the paid GSuite version or non google services for email for example, it means you don't care enough and perhaps should stop whining about a free service you've opted to use. This is also somehow true about FB. they're trying to monetize their Oculus business but it doesn't pay as much as the ad business I guess. IMO the solution to data collection isn't to completely stop it as it'll make the services less tailored to individuals and dumber. Instead I'd rather the data be collected but under full control of the individual. So I can decide who gets to access it and for how long.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  > If you're complaining about seeing ads and are not using the paid GSuite version or non google services for email for example, it means you don't care enough and perhaps should stop whining about a free service you've opted to use. This and you characterizing people opposing Facebook and Google as “whining” does not contribute to the discussion. If you think not paying for a service revokes your right to complain about it, why are you even comparing Google and Facebook at all? Your comment is neither insightful nor consistent.
  - gerash 9y ago
    I didn't say those who don't pay for a service have no right to complain. I'm opposing the constant characterization of what Google and Facebook do [successfully and other companies do too but less successfully] which is collecting behavior signals to tailor ads and services is inherently nefarious. But again, if one opts to receive some service for free, they sure can complain but I don't think they are guaranteed any change to that service based on their complaint. IMO what matters is that users have alternatives and are not locked in.
gator-io 9y ago
If the DNS/cert leakage problem can be solved, the ISPs won't be able to see or inject anything with HTTPS usage rising: https://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?id=https https://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?id=https LetsEncrypt.org now has wildcard certs. No site should be using HTTP anymore.
censorship 9y ago
Facebook, twitter, google Both violates my privacy and sell my information to unkown sources. Yes all they are same
senectus1 9y ago
Facebook is less trustworthy than Google. Facebook has a very full history overflowing with deceit, misdirect, lies theft and not really giving a toss when getting found out. Google has tripped up once or twice and actively tries to fix its problems. I find Google a lot less scary than Facebook.
jkFeiwi 9y ago
Can't we agree that both are scary? You can live without both.
WovenTales 9y ago
I find it amazing that Chollet even tries to argue "There’s only one company where the product is an opaque algorithmic newsfeed, that has been running large-scale mood/opinion manipulation experiments..." when Google's ranking algorithm is so infamously fickle, and especially when its per-user bubbling is an open secret and even obliquely touted as a feature.
sidcool 9y ago
I doubt all fault lies with Zuckerberg here. Because he is doing what the system rewards, maximizing investor wealth. And that means companies will do everything to profit, and only apologize if caught. Facebook won't have cared till 2025 if they were not caught. Same with Google may be what they are doing, and they are more careful than Google in getting caught.
Proven 9y ago
The chief premise of this whole nonsense of getting worked up about sites that users VOLUNTARILY visit is that the average person is a moron who needs the protection of State. Fxxx that.
ThoAppelsin 9y ago
Google surely can draw a network of its ever-logged-in users just with their ad services alone: 1. You visit a page with some Google ad at home. 2. Someone else at home visits another page with some Google ad. 3. Your browsers make the request through the same IP address, marking you as potential acquaintances. With the frequency of this happening, they can put weights on the edges to mark how closely you are related to that other person. And since they can, they will. Otherwise, it would be the loss of this great opportunity for them. I don't see Google being any less manipulative than Facebook, with all the capable tools they have now. They are ever-present, can track you almost regardless where you visit (ads and analytics), they can gather information about your profile/network, and most importantly, they curate the information presented to you (search and ads).
sureaboutthis 9y ago
Neither scares me in any way whatsoever. What does scare me are those who use Facebook as their source of information for how to run their lives.
vasilipupkin 9y ago
I'm really confused by the whole anti Facebook thing. Agree they messed up on privacy, but calling them evil, useless, etc seems over the top. I like FB and find it useful and don't care if somebody has my public profile data, since its public already
- zombieprocesses 9y ago
  What's even more shocking is google's PR team here claiming that google is working to "improve" the world. It's so disgusting and tacky.
mtgx 9y ago
I'm a little concerned with this type of posts. I understand there are other companies just as bad or maybe even worse than Facebook, but shouldn't we focus on them one at a time? This type of articles tend to have the tone of "hey everyone does this, so maybe what FB is doing isn't so bad?" That's a mistake and it's misleading. There is a reason The Guardian published Snowden's stories one at a time. People can't get mad at everything all at once. They get into analysis paralysis. Let's fix the issue with Facebook. Then once that's done, we can move on to Google. And then once that's done we can move on to the ISPs, and so on. But if we throw this "the whole world is terrible and every company is bad" story at people, they aren't going to do anything.
dibstern 9y ago
Google edits its search results to achieve political agenda. This is worse than Facebook, which is just used by other political actors. Google does it without a profit incentive, and if its own accord. Evidence: Search “European History” or “American Inventors” in google.com. Now go to www.google.es and search “gente europea historia” or “inventor americano”.
cfv 9y ago
Well I mean Google seems to be a lot less eager to give detailed behavioral profiles and social graphs to random people who ask nicely.
Sylos 9y ago
I was expecting some more points on how Google actually does scary things, too. I can recount more points off the top of my head than this article lists and the headline seems to suggest that this would be the main-point of the article. Instead, it's mostly just a platform for this François Chollet's opinion, which is even biased into quite the opposite direction.
smsm42 9y ago
Depends on what scares you. If you are worried about your privacy, Google is way scarier. If you don't use Facebook as a social networking site, the data it will have to you is minimal. Can be made even smaller with a couple of extensions available on all browsers. Now Google owns one of the largest ads network in existence, which means you're being tracked by Google every time you set foot on any site that runs ads. Plus, those that don't probably use Google Analytics, which is also tracking you. Plus, there's Youtube, Google office suite, GMail (even if you don't use it, half of your correspondents do, including many companies so you don't even know by domain name that you send data to Google). Plus, Google Drive, etc. Plus Android, plus Google Play, plus Google Maps, etc. The amount of your private data that is going to Google, if you have any online presence, is stunning. Google is clearly scarier. Now, if you're worried about these data being used in partisan political battles, the picture is different. As we know by now, both US political tribes has been able to successfully collect and use Facebook social graph data for their purposes. Facebook management remains more or less neutral so far on this question - while the top management undoubtedly belongs to the blue tribe, and, as we've seen, has been glad to provide access to blue tribe campaigns, the red tribe has been able to use the data too. For Google, again, the company is managed by the blue tribe, and openly sides with it at every opportunity, but we don't know anything about how or whether the data is used for political purposes. If you are concerned about the red tribe gaining the same access to private data and control over mega-corporations as the blue one has been enjoying so far, Facebook would be scarier for you, while Google would look pretty safe - even though they have a lot of data, people with correct tribal affiliations are guarding it, so no need to worry there.

423 points by dnetesn 9y ago

jasonvorhe 9y ago

Isn't this rhetoric getting tiresome at some point?

iamdave 9y ago
The conversation at the root? Not so much. But yeah the rhetoric and seeming lack of nuance around it makes me roll my eyes from time to time. Edit: instead of driveby downvotes, Id welcome some commentary on what was so incendiary about this remark to warrant swiftly taking the comment down into the negatives.
fareesh 9y ago
This has been a long time coming. https://twitter.com/georgesoros/status/964471195793068032 https://twitter.com/georgesoros/status/964471195793068032 I posted about it here, but was heavily downvoted because mentioning this man automatically brands you as a conspiracy theorist. It's really naive to think he doesn't know the news before it's news.
- r3bl 9y ago
  It's really naive to think that this only became news in 2018. It's rather obvious that both Facebook and Google are conglomerates that know way more then they should about us. That has been the case since at least 2012. There's nothing newsworthy about that.

basicplus2 9y ago

Its a bit like saying.. is getting smashed in the face with a brick really as scary as getting getting smashed in the face with a rock?

kbaker 9y ago

The one time Betteridge's Law fails us. > Chollet bristled at this. “This is the laziest kind of thinking—just because two things share some superficial similarity (they’re large tech [companies]) doesn’t mean they’re equivalent,” he said. But... the article is just a riff off of Chollet's tweets about working for Alphabet. Mostly about Facebook anyways.

iamdave 9y ago
I too had thoughts of Betteridge but in the opposite: it definitely applies and he article gives us a few examples. But after a second read of the article I think the answer instead of being a flat "no", the answer would probably be more accurately answered with "depends on who you're asking"

jugad 9y ago

I don't know the nuanced answer but overall Google seems less irritating, and less fake (because G+ failed)?

rootusrootus 9y ago
And they don't have Zuckerberg. Seriously, though, I think some of it is that Google is a little more transparent. They ingest tremendous amounts of data about you, but for the most part it's while you do things you would otherwise do. Facebook is a destination, an environment unto itself, and it's impossible to ignore that it's addictive and sucking you in over and over. So you use it, but hate it all the same because it has too much power. I've looked at the data Google collects on me, and it's probably more frightening than what FB has managed to gather. Google has all my search queries to look at, every place I've driven, etc. All without me really noticing.

greggarious 9y ago

It's a lot simpler to avoid Google though. I've been using DuckDuckGo for a while now and the switch was simple. There's no network effect like with Facebook, hence less ennui about it.

mudil 9y ago
They still have their cookies and follow your every move, especially if you have android phone.
- ReverseCold 9y ago
  Note about Google-Android phones: how long you use each app and when is tracked. To avoid this, use a custom rom without GApps. You can also "turn off" this "feature" from some menu online, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't actually stop data collection.
gt_ 9y ago
>seems Google is just more self-aware, which can change at any time. This is separate from their potential, and the potential is what matters here. We know Facebook had the potential to do damage for years, but we don't know how much damage they have done. As for what a company "seems", that is a sum of marketing and PR.
smt88 9y ago
Google is also tracking you via emails sent to/from Gmail, AdSense scripts, free CDNs, Android, etc. I find Facebook to be easier to avoid, though more costly in terms of my happiness
dijit 9y ago
I feel like this is at least slightly disingenuous. Sure, your friends keep you hooked on FB but there are other methods of communication.. Even if they're FB owned (like whatsapp). But google owns the most dominant browser right now, they're spidered into most websites using their analytics engine. They handle more email than the next 5 providers combined, and they have the most dominant mobile OS on the market.

sykh 9y ago

What is scary is the unregulated way in which massive amounts of data can be used to sway public opinion so easily. What is even scarier than this is the way in which those in power can use massive amounts of data to sway public opinion without oversight. The very notion of a republican form of government may end up needing to be reanalyzed. Forget concentrating on Google or Facebook. There is a larger concern. If multi-national company A collects massive amounts of data and sells it to company B to use to influence elections in country C then in what way are C's people in control of their government? Especially if A and B are based in another country.

delbel 9y ago
I was trying to come up with a solution. Something like retroactively classify companies that are taking money or are involved in this type of stuff register as a Political Action Committee. Because this is regulated by the FEC. Make Google, CNN, Facebook, Fox, whatever, disclose they are working for hire to politicize your experience. Then, make it so that every 5 years a company can appeal this retro-active PAC status. When they appeal they have to show, in full transparency, that they are no longer participating in these schemes by showing internal procedures, logs, their appeal process, and comments from the public. Somebody make this idea better and help promote it. It's a start
- taurath 9y ago
  I’ve always thought that a way to get this passed would be to tell the public that you’d be effecting whichever the other sides media is. For conservatives that’d be restricting cnn, msnbc, etc and for liberals that’d be Fox News brietbart etc. People hate the other side more than they love their side I find.
  - TaylorAlexander 9y ago
    But those news agencies would be committing suicide if they supported this, so none of them would promote that message.
  - droidist2 9y ago

drawkbox 9y ago

Your ISP tracking your every move is scarier than all of them after the ISP privacy bill passed. At least Facebook and Google give you something for it and you can route around them if you desire. No routing around ISPs unless you use a VPN but even then they are blocking those. Broadband/cable/telcos capture everything you do and can now sell that information and do[1]. That bill was the pre-cursor to removing net neutrality by taking privacy and policy from the FCC to the FTC. Part of Jeff Flakes argument for getting rid of the privacy protections were so that ISPs can compete with Facebook and Google and sell your data/offer ads to you. Yet Facebook and Google at least built products you wanted that you willingly gave up privacy to use and at least got something for it [2][3]. ISPs you have to pay to use and they still take your data as if you are the product. ISPs could have built products people wanted to get that data but they instead bribed 'representatives' to get it via legislation with their local monopolies. Noone wanted this bill but ISPs. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-you... [2] https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-for-the-wall-street-journal https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-f... [3] https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/flake-introduces-resolution-to-protect-consumers-from-overreaching-internet-regulation https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/flake-i...

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> they are blocking those Do any American ISPs routinely Blick VPNs?
- drawkbox 9y ago
  Not outright but they definitely mess with VPNs. Before net neutrality Cox for instance blocked VPNs quite a bit [1], they are holding off for now, but with net neutrality gone expect it to return. Now that they have to inspect traffic for slow lanes, they'll just put VPNs throttled down at a minimum. > 2003—Cox and Comcast block VPNs: Back in the early internet, both Comcast and Cox Communications placed bans on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). This was before VPNs became as ubiquitous as they are now. Back then, the only people who really used VPNs were doing so to access a work computer remotely. Which made Cox and Comcast’s choices to block them even weirder. [1] https://lifehacker.com/what-happens-when-broadband-companies-self-regulate-1794710098 https://lifehacker.com/what-happens-when-broadband-companies...

Malarkey73 9y ago

I know Google is profiling me and harvesting my data. But it's not using me to harvest my friends information. I know Google is targeting ads at me - and they maybe AB tested. But those ads are from real companies or organisations - they aren't fake bots or astroturf groups algorithmically designed to tell me what I want to hear. I'm sceptically watchful of Google, I feel I have a social contract with them where they use me and I use them. I think Facebook has way overstepped that mark.

throwaway84742 9y ago
>> But it's not using me to harvest my friends information Of course. It already has your friends’ information.
- eat_veggies 9y ago
  And your friends agreed to it, same as you. That's the difference.
  - futhey 9y ago
    Doesn't this also apply to Facebook? Maybe you could argue it's not current data, but at some point Facebook reached ubiquity, and collected enough data to make sophisticated inferences about everyone.
  - throwaway84742 9y ago
    Not necessarily. Address book access rights on Android and iOS are a gray area. I don’t have control over whether you hand over my contact info to whoever you want. So are incoming emails from outside Gmail, and a bunch of other things. So is tracking of accounts that aren’t even logged into anything, and demographic inference on top of that, etc, etc. I mean we are literally talking about a company that tracks the entirety of the web, and has an overwhelming share of people’s email, search, and video history. You’d have to be unbelievably naive to think that this information can’t be abused. That’s not to say Google currently abuses it, but some of the ads stuff is way into the gray area territory imo, and god help us all if they decide to get evil for real.

AlexCoventry 9y ago

Google is scarier in terms of its capabilities, but it's starting from a more solid ethical foundation.

a_imho 9y ago
it's starting from a more solid ethical foundation What do you base this on?
s2g 9y ago
No, it's starting from a foundation of loudly yelling about not being evil in order to distract from their evil behaviour.
wutbrodo 9y ago
I feel like this is a piece that people elide pretty frequently. The Google founders have spoken about tons of things over the years, and consistently come across as being principled and passionate, even if your moral foundation is different from theirs. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, set the tone with the "dumb fucks" IM and has only recently gotten better at not projecting contempt for his users. I honestly couldn't even pin down what his ethical foundations are, given that they seem to swing with the tides of public opinion and what PR message is currently convenient ("connect the whole world! every interaction is a good one!" --> the more recent "maybe some social interactions are bad, only 'good' ones from now on!"). It's of course entirely possible that this simply means that the Google guys are better at personal PR than Facebook is, but at the very least it helps explain why the perception of each is different.
- aylmao 9y ago
  Mark Zukerberg has a foundation with his wife, and they have vowed to donate 99% of their net worth to it [1]. This is Bill and Melinda Gates level; they also pledged to donate the vast majority of their wealth (95%). Sergey cheated on his wife with a Google employee (who was like 20 years younger and dating another executive) and got a widely publicized divorce [2]. We don't have transcripts for Sergey and Page, but how do we know they didn't also think their users were "dumb fucks", or weren't nice people in college? I am of the opinion that to become a billionaire you have to step on a lot of people; I am not one to think that Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are moral guides for anyone, and this very much applies to Page and Brin too. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Chan_(philanthropist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Chan_(philanthropist... [2]: http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/entertainment/life-after-a-cheating-google-tycoon-ex http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/entertainment/life-aft... EDIT: > I honestly couldn't even pin down what his ethical foundations are, given that they seem to swing with the tides of public opinion and what PR message is currently convenient Two points on this: 1. Google's mission is to "organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful". What's the "ethical foundation" behind that? Do we know this will make the world a better place? "Useful" for whom? 2. Both Google and Facebook are advertising companies. They optimize to sell ads.

product50 9y ago

If FB goes down for one day it is a minor inconvenience. If Google goes down for one day, I am literally at a standstill. No Maps, no Search, no GMail, no YouTube, no Photos! I don't know how I will get through the day without these services :( As such, with Google, I am more than ok them using my data to target me ads since it does feel a mutually beneficial relationship.

lucb1e 9y ago
> As such, with Google, I am more than ok them using my data Woah, that was a very different conclusion than I was expecting. The post builds up to how terribly dependent you are, but concludes with "so I'm very happy". I see your reasoning and your point, but don't forget what kind of relation this is (where you pay very little to nothing for most services, money-wise...).
- product50 9y ago
  I am happy to pay them money or pay with data. Choose your thing. We can't just keep on operating in a world where everything is free and we don't want targeted ads. And I never used "I'm so very happy". This is where biases come in. My goal was to say that Google services are very useful (to me) and I am ok if in return I have to give them my data.
  - draggnar 9y ago
    I'm very happy to pay them, just like a utility.
    - product50 9y ago
      That makes sense. I will do it as well if advertising wasn't a model. In some ways, YouTube already allows that with Red. I wonder how many people are like you though outside the tech forums and especially in developing countries (where a lot of the users for US based tech companies come from).
    - 9y ago

thriftwy 9y ago

You can also dump it and not miss a beat. Much harder to do with Google. Facebook is thoroughly non-essential.

jonathanyc 9y ago
Tell that to people with Android phones. Google Play Services is an opaque blob that cannot be uninstalled and is necessary for nearly all Android apps. And it is constantly uploading your location minute-by-minute to Google for use in things like their "Popular Times" card on search results and who knows what else.
- garaetjjte 9y ago
  Google location services can be disabled. And there is open Play Services reimplementation, microG.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  When you set up an Android phone you have the option of not using Google Services. Secondly, you can disable Google Play Services anytime you want. You can also turn off location history and tracking anytime you want so I'm not sure where you get the idea that none of these services or apps can be turned off or disabled.
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    I am not sure what comment you think you are replying to. Google Play Services cannot be uninstalled on a stock Android phone, like I said, only disabled; and disabling it means the vast majority of Android apps won’t work, like I said. These are facts that anyone can verify for themselves; you merely claiming otherwise doesn’t change this. You also seem to be confusing Google’s various services with Google Play Services specifically.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      You can, however, disable the location tracking across your device pretty easily, or even just disable location history if you want other tools to be able to use your location. Yes, disabling core features of your device results in a worse user experience, this should not come as a surprise.

golemiprague 9y ago

Every little stupid app is harvesting your phone whether it is facebook or not. Most people don't care that much about giving permissions and as a developer I have seen millions of people letting apps stealing their most valuable data including text messages, documents, basically anything on their phone. This whole thing blew up because they helped Trump, simple as that, if it wasn't Trump you wouldn't hear about it.

dudul 9y ago

The main difference from my point of view, as a Google and a non-Facebook user, is that Google actually provides useful services. From GMail, to Maps, Drive, etc. Facebook (as I see it at least) provides zero value. It creates toxic echo-chambers and countless studies have proven again and again that it makes people miserable.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Facebook provides a ton of a value to lots of people. In many cases its their entire social circle and how they communicate with them. Just because it doesn't create value for you or I doesn't mean it creates value.
- dudul 9y ago
  I knew somebody would say that. And that's why my comment is sprinkled with "IMO", "from my point of view" etc. Now, is it really a good service to help people manage their "social circle" in this manner? Not according to me.

s2g 9y ago

No. Both are awful companies. I'm sick to death of the Silicon Valley conglomerates built on the back of siphoning data for ad companies.

paulie_a 9y ago

One of the few times a headline ends with a question mark the obvious answer is in fact: "yes" Google is evil. Facebook is worse.

libdjml 9y ago
I know I have an unexplainable bias toward seeing google as inherently positive to society, so I’m keen to hear what makes you think google is evil?
- paulie_a 9y ago
  I don't agree that collecting private data is "inherently positive to society" considering the result is low quality advertising
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  They intentionally design their products in such a way that puts their user's privacy and security in danger, by not putting the user in control of their own data. By using Advertising as the basis for their business, they have encouraged a huge race to the bottom for other online services. They also tie themselves unnecessarily into other parts of the web, and degrade the experience in efforts to consolidate power for themselves.
Sylos 9y ago
I disagree. Facebook is just less clever about being evil. Google instead looms in every corner that remains too complicated for most people to understand and quietly harvests data. And the article really does a piss-poor job at trying to pursue its question. Heck, most of it is directly quoting the opinion of a Google engineer.

Ivoirians 9y ago

Disclaimer: I work for Google and these views are only my opinion, etc. From my perspective, Google's goals are aligned with improving the world by offering information services. Search, Gmail, Maps, Translate, basically all of the Other Bets, etc.--it's easy to imagine that the people behind them are more concerned with impact on the world than on generating profit or consolidating Google's power. To me, Facebook has no such world-improving aspirations. The extent to which I'm aware of Facebook's attempt to improve the world was the initiative to bring free internet to India, which was perceived as a play to lock more people into Facebook. Plus, I keep seeing studies of how increased Facebook usage correlates negatively with peoples' moods, so Zuckerberg's evident goal of "get everyone on Earth on Facebook" feels gross. Things obviously aren't just this black and white, and both companies collect user data in order to generate buckets of advertising wealth (which, if you find disagreeable, probably biases you against both companies), but from a personal perspective, I'm quite happy working for Google while I don't think you could pay me enough to work for Facebook.

pnloyd 9y ago
A lot of people seem to default to a really cynical view of tech businesses. I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life easier. This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many people hold is getting kinda old. Giving them your data is the price you pay for their service. If this doesn't seem fair to you then find an alternative. Enough of this scary business. Maybe with the Equifax and Cambridge analytica incidents the broader public will start thinking about privacy more seriously. And in turn companies may start pushing privacy assurances as selling points. (Just reaching for a bit of optimism in these unnerving circumstances, I don't like it either)
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life easier. I've never understood how people can have such a religious-like faith in a corporation they have never seen the inside of and in which they know not a single person who works there. Gullibility perhaps? >This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many people hold is getting kinda old. Do you care at all about security? Because that is the fundamental assumption behind taking any security precaution whatsoever in life, whether it's putting a lock on your door or not trusting a faceless corporation with billions of the most detailed psychological profiles in history.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

xkcd-sucks 9y ago

Maybe, maybe not. But, it would be a wasted opportunity not to kill Facebook right now because the political will of the resist-trump crowd makes the attempt more likely to succeed.

aylmao 9y ago
Yet the argument could be made that without Facebook, the duopoly on online advertising could become a monopoly by Google. They'd definitely hop in and try at a social network again too. They have your voice, your live location, your email, your texts, your photos including a model of your face, your search history, your youtube viewing preferences, and they wouldn't miss the chance to hop in for your social graph and "likes" too.

kaonashi 9y ago

Not at all; Google is every bit as scary. Together the two companies have sucked all the profit out of publishing.

zitterbewegung 9y ago

They are both equally scary but Facebook has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and now everyone is aware of it. Note , I am not claiming that Google will be caught doing this.

mattlondon 9y ago

If you use FB, you have to be logged in and actively engaged by you providing your identity to use it. Google can be used without logging in or tracking. That is the critical difference for me - to use Facebook you have to actively be part of the social graph and share your identity. Google wants you to sign in, but you don't have to (apart from Gmail etc) To block tracking from most people you can: * Block third party cookies in your browser. * Use DuckDuckGo. * Block ads. * Use a VPN (to get differing IP addresses). This will neuter 99% of tracking approaches that rely on cookies, IP matching, purchase history, or being logged in. For Google and others too. Some will use more exotic approaches to tracking (e.g. canvas fingerprints) but there is a browser extension arms race to handle that. The first 3 of those things take 90 seconds to do once then forget about and never deal with again. It's not hard. VPNs are more commitment and come with their own problems, but add some extra obfuscation. If you don't want to use android then obviously you can get another phone. Firefox is viable again these days. There are fewer and fewer excuses for this attitude - Google is not inescapable IMO, but you cannot escape Facebook if you want to use it. It just comes down to how much you care and how much you value their services - you might need to ask yourself some hard questions about what you really value and what you are prepared to go without before complaining about how these companies are run in order to offer you free services. (views are my own opinion) edit: perhaps I wasn't clear: ad blockers and/or disallowing third party cookies will prevent Facebook like buttons (or tracking pixels from other parties) from tracking you as effectively, especially if you cycle your IP addresses with a VPN. You just look like a totally different user each time.

partiallypro 9y ago
Not entirely true. Facebook, like Google, has tracking pixels on pretty much every site now. I find Google and Facebook both to be fairly terrifying in their immense power. I also fear Amazon, I used to be an avid Amazon shopper, but now I try to go out of my way to not use them if I can help it. I never thought I'd live to see companies like Apple and Microsoft being more of the good guys than their competitors (relatively speaking.)
m_ke 9y ago
Facebook tracks everyone that comes across a page with a like button. They also purchase data from 3rd parties https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/30/facebook-buys-data-on-users-offline-habits-for-better-ads/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/30/facebook-buys-data-on-us...

aylmao 9y ago

Google has a profile of my voice solid enough that they're comfortable making it an authentication option in Android. They have microphones in millions of homes and millions more on people's pockets, which are by the way also tracking live location and a myriad of other data. Yikes.

whatyoucantsay 9y ago

Facebook is ethically bankrupt, but their power is much more limited. Google is nothing less than the greatest threat to humanity. Trump, North Korea, militant Islam and Putin all pale in comparison to what Google is capable of. Only Xi's increasingly nationalist and modernized China is capable of remotely the same kind of threat, but Google has a huge lead in military robotics and will probably reach the AI tipping point first. They have been a beautifully gilded trojan horse, beloved in the beginning, but in the end most of humanity will likely regret having given away so much to Google.

bitmapbrother 9y ago

Is Microsoft scarier than Google? Unlike Google, Microsoft tracks and profiles you online via their search engine and through all of the "telemetry" Windows sends back to them. Also, doesn't Microsoft operate their Azure cloud service in China that is run by a Chinese state run company?

jonathanyc 9y ago
> Unlike Google, Microsoft tracks and profiles you online via their search engine Citation seriously needed. “Unlike Google?” Who are you trying to kid?
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that Bing doesn't track users? Who are you trying to kid. Microsoft is able to recognize the same user across devices by using an anonymous identifier (MSID). The MSID is used to describe a persistent unique identifier used by Microsoft Advertising to deliver targeted ads and recognize the same user across devices and Microsoft services. Customers have a choice to opt out of targeted advertisements that use the MSID by visiting http://choice.microsoft.com/en-us/opt-outand http://choice.microsoft.com/en-us/opt-outand turning off the control that says “Personalized Ads Wherever I use my Microsoft Account” https://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-launches-universal-event-tracking-206467 https://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-launches-universal-eve...
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    What on Earth? My comment takes issue with your claim that Bing is “unlike Google.” Google’s privacy policy explicitly allows them to use queries for advertising, not “unlike Bing.” Why are you trying to paint Microsoft as exceptional here? > We use the information we collect from all of our services to provide, maintain, protect and improve them, to develop new ones, and to protect Google and our users. We also use this information to offer you tailored content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads. https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/#infouse https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/#infouse

maxxxxx 9y ago

They are both scary enough to limit both of them. I don't think we should choose one or the other.

tzakrajs 9y ago

Forget scary. Let's talk about utility. Facebook gives you distraction but Google gives you information (YouTube, Google Search, GMail, Maps, Voice, Fiber, Project Fi, etc) and is more restrictive about how it lets partners use its platform to interact with users.

libdjml 9y ago
This 100% Google build genuinely useful products, and use the knowledge it gains about you to show (generally somewhat useful) ads, and generally stays out of your way. Facebook on the other hand desperately tries to manipulate you into consuming as much time as possible on their platform at almost any cost, using lowest common denominator tricks.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  I agree with everything you said except for "generally stays out of your way." Try blocking all Google domains via a hosts file, and you'll see that they have put their hooks into all kinds of systems, and do so in ways that seriously impede how normal web-pages should function.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  It's just kind of a false choice. I use FB to keep in touch and chat with friends, find out about local events, follow various interesting people, etc. google tried to do the same thing with Google Plus and failed. But I certainly don't feel manipulated by FB, I feel they are providing me with a useful service.
jonathanyc 9y ago
YouTube suggesting extremist videos to people in order to maximize views is giving you “information”? Can we stop pretending Google is somehow more useful to the average person than Facebook?
- kimdcmason 9y ago
  .

digitalantfarm 9y ago

I hear so many people talking about this like there's literally no way about going around these issues. Is it that unimaginable to use an alternative search engine like DuckDuck go? To use tor? To use a VPN? To disable javascript? To block ads? To put some IPs in your /etc/hosts? To use OpenOffice instead of Google Docs and MS Office? To use Proton Mail instead of Gmail? These products even have nice user interfaces these days! Privacy isn't that hard. These companies offer a service for free (mostly). If you can't do it, I think it's mostly because you just don't care.

projektir 9y ago
Maybe because you're not convincing the average person to use those services anytime soon, and that is who matters.

gerash 9y ago

I personally prefer Google over FB. I haven't deleted my FB account because that's my contact list of some sort but I am not very active. I guess I prefer the Snapchat model where what you post doesn't stick around forever. I'm not fond of the aggressive, greedy bro attitude of FB in moving fast and breaking things. On the other hand I use Google services all the time. Folks whining about data collection should realize Google hasn't decided to be an ad company, it's just they have succeeded monetizing it better than their more recent cloud offering and in future their hardware business. So it's not an ad company because it does everything top down based on what would make ad business succeed. It's just that the search product is popular and placing ads next to it pays well. If you're complaining about seeing ads and are not using the paid GSuite version or non google services for email for example, it means you don't care enough and perhaps should stop whining about a free service you've opted to use. This is also somehow true about FB. they're trying to monetize their Oculus business but it doesn't pay as much as the ad business I guess. IMO the solution to data collection isn't to completely stop it as it'll make the services less tailored to individuals and dumber. Instead I'd rather the data be collected but under full control of the individual. So I can decide who gets to access it and for how long.

jonathanyc 9y ago
> If you're complaining about seeing ads and are not using the paid GSuite version or non google services for email for example, it means you don't care enough and perhaps should stop whining about a free service you've opted to use. This and you characterizing people opposing Facebook and Google as “whining” does not contribute to the discussion. If you think not paying for a service revokes your right to complain about it, why are you even comparing Google and Facebook at all? Your comment is neither insightful nor consistent.
- gerash 9y ago
  I didn't say those who don't pay for a service have no right to complain. I'm opposing the constant characterization of what Google and Facebook do [successfully and other companies do too but less successfully] which is collecting behavior signals to tailor ads and services is inherently nefarious. But again, if one opts to receive some service for free, they sure can complain but I don't think they are guaranteed any change to that service based on their complaint. IMO what matters is that users have alternatives and are not locked in.

gator-io 9y ago

If the DNS/cert leakage problem can be solved, the ISPs won't be able to see or inject anything with HTTPS usage rising: https://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?id=https https://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?id=https LetsEncrypt.org now has wildcard certs. No site should be using HTTP anymore.

censorship 9y ago

Facebook, twitter, google Both violates my privacy and sell my information to unkown sources. Yes all they are same

senectus1 9y ago

Facebook is less trustworthy than Google. Facebook has a very full history overflowing with deceit, misdirect, lies theft and not really giving a toss when getting found out. Google has tripped up once or twice and actively tries to fix its problems. I find Google a lot less scary than Facebook.

jkFeiwi 9y ago

Can't we agree that both are scary? You can live without both.

WovenTales 9y ago

I find it amazing that Chollet even tries to argue "There’s only one company where the product is an opaque algorithmic newsfeed, that has been running large-scale mood/opinion manipulation experiments..." when Google's ranking algorithm is so infamously fickle, and especially when its per-user bubbling is an open secret and even obliquely touted as a feature.

sidcool 9y ago

I doubt all fault lies with Zuckerberg here. Because he is doing what the system rewards, maximizing investor wealth. And that means companies will do everything to profit, and only apologize if caught. Facebook won't have cared till 2025 if they were not caught. Same with Google may be what they are doing, and they are more careful than Google in getting caught.

Proven 9y ago

The chief premise of this whole nonsense of getting worked up about sites that users VOLUNTARILY visit is that the average person is a moron who needs the protection of State. Fxxx that.

ThoAppelsin 9y ago

Google surely can draw a network of its ever-logged-in users just with their ad services alone: 1. You visit a page with some Google ad at home. 2. Someone else at home visits another page with some Google ad. 3. Your browsers make the request through the same IP address, marking you as potential acquaintances. With the frequency of this happening, they can put weights on the edges to mark how closely you are related to that other person. And since they can, they will. Otherwise, it would be the loss of this great opportunity for them. I don't see Google being any less manipulative than Facebook, with all the capable tools they have now. They are ever-present, can track you almost regardless where you visit (ads and analytics), they can gather information about your profile/network, and most importantly, they curate the information presented to you (search and ads).

sureaboutthis 9y ago

Neither scares me in any way whatsoever. What does scare me are those who use Facebook as their source of information for how to run their lives.

vasilipupkin 9y ago

I'm really confused by the whole anti Facebook thing. Agree they messed up on privacy, but calling them evil, useless, etc seems over the top. I like FB and find it useful and don't care if somebody has my public profile data, since its public already

zombieprocesses 9y ago
What's even more shocking is google's PR team here claiming that google is working to "improve" the world. It's so disgusting and tacky.

mtgx 9y ago

I'm a little concerned with this type of posts. I understand there are other companies just as bad or maybe even worse than Facebook, but shouldn't we focus on them one at a time? This type of articles tend to have the tone of "hey everyone does this, so maybe what FB is doing isn't so bad?" That's a mistake and it's misleading. There is a reason The Guardian published Snowden's stories one at a time. People can't get mad at everything all at once. They get into analysis paralysis. Let's fix the issue with Facebook. Then once that's done, we can move on to Google. And then once that's done we can move on to the ISPs, and so on. But if we throw this "the whole world is terrible and every company is bad" story at people, they aren't going to do anything.

dibstern 9y ago

Google edits its search results to achieve political agenda. This is worse than Facebook, which is just used by other political actors. Google does it without a profit incentive, and if its own accord. Evidence: Search “European History” or “American Inventors” in google.com. Now go to www.google.es and search “gente europea historia” or “inventor americano”.

cfv 9y ago

Well I mean Google seems to be a lot less eager to give detailed behavioral profiles and social graphs to random people who ask nicely.

Sylos 9y ago

I was expecting some more points on how Google actually does scary things, too. I can recount more points off the top of my head than this article lists and the headline seems to suggest that this would be the main-point of the article. Instead, it's mostly just a platform for this François Chollet's opinion, which is even biased into quite the opposite direction.

smsm42 9y ago

Depends on what scares you. If you are worried about your privacy, Google is way scarier. If you don't use Facebook as a social networking site, the data it will have to you is minimal. Can be made even smaller with a couple of extensions available on all browsers. Now Google owns one of the largest ads network in existence, which means you're being tracked by Google every time you set foot on any site that runs ads. Plus, those that don't probably use Google Analytics, which is also tracking you. Plus, there's Youtube, Google office suite, GMail (even if you don't use it, half of your correspondents do, including many companies so you don't even know by domain name that you send data to Google). Plus, Google Drive, etc. Plus Android, plus Google Play, plus Google Maps, etc. The amount of your private data that is going to Google, if you have any online presence, is stunning. Google is clearly scarier. Now, if you're worried about these data being used in partisan political battles, the picture is different. As we know by now, both US political tribes has been able to successfully collect and use Facebook social graph data for their purposes. Facebook management remains more or less neutral so far on this question - while the top management undoubtedly belongs to the blue tribe, and, as we've seen, has been glad to provide access to blue tribe campaigns, the red tribe has been able to use the data too. For Google, again, the company is managed by the blue tribe, and openly sides with it at every opportunity, but we don't know anything about how or whether the data is used for political purposes. If you are concerned about the red tribe gaining the same access to private data and control over mega-corporations as the blue one has been enjoying so far, Facebook would be scarier for you, while Google would look pretty safe - even though they have a lot of data, people with correct tribal affiliations are guarding it, so no need to worry there.