4 ms·

> losing Uber for a feature that will be used by 6 people is not a reasonable trade-off for a platform to make. Than it stands that Google values money more th

> losing Uber for a feature that will be used by 6 people is not a reasonable trade-off for a platform to make. Than it stands that Google values money more than they value designing a system with their user's best interests in mind. > Unless you mean that you think they are lying and secretly storing your data in which case there's a plethora of legal reasons they can't do that. Yeah, because Google never lies about what they do with data, or how they collect it. /sarcasm I have no direct evidence of them doing it this time, but fool me once... The point is that they could make it work without being dependent on Google Play Services, but they choose not to.

joshuamorton 9y ago
>Than it stands that Google values money more than they value designing a system with their user's best interests in mind. No, they value their average user over you specifically. If the average user will gain more from Uber than from the feature you suggest, it is in Google's users' best interest to not implement that feature. >Yeah, because Google never lies about what they do with data, or how they collect it. /sarcasm Then you can certainly name all the other times? There are a number of complaints about Google that I've heard, but being secretive about what data they collect is a new one.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  > No, they value their average user over you specifically. If the average user will gain more from Uber than from the feature you suggest, it is in Google's users' best interest to not implement that feature. No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not to. And I can't think of any way that preventing users from controlling there own data could be good for users. > Then you can certainly name all the other times? I can't name all the other times, but they misuse our data so often, they publish statistics about it: https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?user_requests_report_period=authority:US https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?use...
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    >No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not to. If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the user" rings true here. To put this another way, if your "feature" harms the ecosystem, it is not, in fact, a feature. I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about responding to legally binding government requests. While you may feel that handing data over to the government is a misuse, Google is not secretive about this. They're very straightforward about the fact that they will obey lawful requests, and they're transparent both with affected users, and the general public, about when and how they comply with those requests, as evidenced by the report you just linked. So I'll try this again: since you accused Google of lying about collecting data or lying about what they do with it, can you substantiate that accusation, by giving examples of Google lying about what data it collects, or lying about what it does with that data?
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      > If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the user" rings true here. That's a big if. I highly suspect that Uber wouldn't want to leave one of the biggest platforms just because of a simple option that might already exist. What if Uber demanded to be able to have root on Android phones? Would Google be willing to bow to that because losing them would be a "net loss to Android users"? I'd have to ask you to point out why giving user's more ways to manage their data "harms the ecosystem". > I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about responding to legally binding government requests. Yeah. I did. It doens't matter why they lie, it matters that they lie. Especially If they are willing to lie to me about how they use my data, they why wouldn't they be willing to lie to me about how they collect my data? And I fully admit that I have no direct proof of them lying about how they collect data, but I don't see why you would trust a company that regularly lies to it's users about what it does with that data.

joshuamorton 9y ago

>Than it stands that Google values money more than they value designing a system with their user's best interests in mind. No, they value their average user over you specifically. If the average user will gain more from Uber than from the feature you suggest, it is in Google's users' best interest to not implement that feature. >Yeah, because Google never lies about what they do with data, or how they collect it. /sarcasm Then you can certainly name all the other times? There are a number of complaints about Google that I've heard, but being secretive about what data they collect is a new one.

CaptSpify 9y ago
> No, they value their average user over you specifically. If the average user will gain more from Uber than from the feature you suggest, it is in Google's users' best interest to not implement that feature. No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not to. And I can't think of any way that preventing users from controlling there own data could be good for users. > Then you can certainly name all the other times? I can't name all the other times, but they misuse our data so often, they publish statistics about it: https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?user_requests_report_period=authority:US https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?use...
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  >No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not to. If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the user" rings true here. To put this another way, if your "feature" harms the ecosystem, it is not, in fact, a feature. I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about responding to legally binding government requests. While you may feel that handing data over to the government is a misuse, Google is not secretive about this. They're very straightforward about the fact that they will obey lawful requests, and they're transparent both with affected users, and the general public, about when and how they comply with those requests, as evidenced by the report you just linked. So I'll try this again: since you accused Google of lying about collecting data or lying about what they do with it, can you substantiate that accusation, by giving examples of Google lying about what data it collects, or lying about what it does with that data?
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    > If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the user" rings true here. That's a big if. I highly suspect that Uber wouldn't want to leave one of the biggest platforms just because of a simple option that might already exist. What if Uber demanded to be able to have root on Android phones? Would Google be willing to bow to that because losing them would be a "net loss to Android users"? I'd have to ask you to point out why giving user's more ways to manage their data "harms the ecosystem". > I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about responding to legally binding government requests. Yeah. I did. It doens't matter why they lie, it matters that they lie. Especially If they are willing to lie to me about how they use my data, they why wouldn't they be willing to lie to me about how they collect my data? And I fully admit that I have no direct proof of them lying about how they collect data, but I don't see why you would trust a company that regularly lies to it's users about what it does with that data.