34 ms·

After Facebook scrutiny, is Google next?

311 points by dnetesn 9y ago

amelius 9y ago
Congress should take action, and install a watchdog that continuously monitors these companies; e.g. by verifying that data placed online cannot be bought through different channels.
- koolba 9y ago
  So a USDA style on-site meat inspector but for data?
- SN76477 9y ago
  That isnt going to happen under the current deregulatory administration.
  - leeoniya 9y ago
    it's unlikely to happen in any administration. proactive monitoring is cost prohibitive compared to reactive punishment and a legal framework for doing so. as you said, the latter is unlikely to be meaningfully strengthened. fines and enforcement must present a significantly larger liability than profit opportunity for any real changes to ever take place. else it's just written down as another expense of doing business as usual.
    - ianai 9y ago
      On the other side, it sounds like a job that needs to be done 24/7 and could be done remotely. Precisely the sort of thing that could employ rural America with suitable infrastructure build-out.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > proactive monitoring is cost prohibitive compared to reactive punishment and a legal framework for doing so Counterfactual: finance, another high-margin industry with a penchant for bad decision making, funds a proactive and multi-pronged regulatory apparatus. We are all safer for it.
      - leeoniya 9y ago
        in large part this is made easier because most money travels by known and monitored channels (banks, businesses certified to be money transmitters, etc) with very little going via cash. data on the other hand is a much more diverse & fluid asset that travels via a million unmonitored/encrypted channels and can be copied easily. if all money could be easily copied and most transactions were in cash, proactive regulation would be too expensive. i think.
        JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > data on the other hand is a much more diverse & fluid asset that travels via a million unmonitored/encrypted channels and can be copied easily Securities are quite diverse. And people regularly try to get around securities regulation by calling their securities "stamps" or "tokens" or "coins" or whatever. A regulator for social media companies over a certain size might not be a bad idea. (My preference is consumer controls with strict penalties for non-compliance, à la how Illinois governs biometric data [1].) [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-facebook-tagging-privacy-lawsuit-20180417-story,amp.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-facebook-taggi...
    - amelius 9y ago
      > proactive monitoring is cost prohibitive compared to reactive punishment and a legal framework for doing so Just let ad networks pay for it. Ad networks had a chance of self-regulation but they failed. Also, how are you going to catch them if you don't watch them?
- mudil 9y ago
  That is wrong way to approach the issue. These companies should not be gathering personal information worse than NSA. Personal information is personal, and free people in a free society should not be followed by multinational corporations.
  - ianai 9y ago
    I like your sentiment but we’re talking serious company breakups in order to force it. Pretty much most industries could use some trust-busting but the political imperative (outrage) isn’t directed that way.
  - AJ007 9y ago
    At least the targeting is advertising and not drone strikes.
    - hedora 9y ago
      I’m sorry, but trying to draw this distinction is dangerously naive. In order to get decent ad targeting for most industries, they need more than enough information than is needed to target a drone strike. They are legally obligated to share this information with multiple governments (including the US) that openly and routinely engage in extra-judicial killings of civilians. The only solutions to this moral quandary are to either (a) change multiple governments, some democratically elected, some not, or to (b) simply not gather the information in the first place. Google has already tried and failed at option (a), and option (b) would eliminate the vast majority of their revenue.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > free people in a free society should not be followed by multinational corporations Rather, free people should be allowed to choose. And free people are the ones making these companies too.
- UncleMeat 9y ago
  Why would google ever sell data? Surely it is their greatest asset?
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    Google would be the last to sell your data as they know better then anyone the value. This and security is why I try to centralize my data at Google. In the US an ISP can sell your data without you even knowing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/04/04/isps-can-now-collect-and-sell-your-data-what-know-internet-privacy/100015356/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/04/04/isps-can... ISPs can now collect and sell your data: What to know ... - USA Today
    - amelius 9y ago
      But they do sell your data. For example, let's say a bad actor creates a Google ad for pizzas, directed at gay people. Now if you see and click that pizza ad, the bad actor will know your sexual orientation.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        No they won't. They'll know that there exists a person who probably likes pizza and is gay. They don't know who that person is.
        amelius 9y ago
        They do. The first step is that you are only shown the ad if you are gay. This means that if somebody clicks the ad, then they must be gay. The second step is that if you click the ad and order the pizza, the pizza company (=bad actor) will ask for your details (e.g. name, address). This information can then be coupled to your sexual orientation. And this happens without you knowing. All you think is that you are ordering pizza.
        Gigablah 9y ago
alvil 9y ago
Sure Thing! Google is the next. http://fortune.com/2018/01/26/george-soros-facebook-google-engineer-addiction/ http://fortune.com/2018/01/26/george-soros-facebook-google-e...
cdancette 9y ago
Next is passing laws to avoid those kind of problems (like GDPR). It's not sufficient to go after each shady company that sells your data.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Exactly. There has to be a framework that everyone has to follow. Imagine we had no laws against theft and you would get into trouble only if you overdid it by some undefined standard
  - matte_black 9y ago
    No, it’s more like people leaving shit all over your property and when you go pick it up they come back and want to charge you with theft.
    - SahAssar 9y ago
      No, it's like inviting people over for a casual party and then recording everything from 15 different angles, including in the bathroom, and then hiring a few people on every street in the town to photograph everyone walking down that street so that you can cross-reference those photos to your candid bathroom shots. And then you let some other people get those photos because "Chad who was at that party said it was OK with him".
- MarkMc 9y ago
  GDPR isn't very effective in that regard. 98% of Facebook users will just click 'Agree and Continue' when promoted, giving Facebook the legal right to buy/sell whatever data they want.
  - cdancette 9y ago
    GDPR is just a first step and obviously is not the whole solution to this problem. But I believe it's a necessary step, even if not perfect.
opportune 9y ago
This article is about (in favor of) censoring the youtube platform to make life easier for advertisers. That doesn't seem very related to the information leaks and level of granular individualized advertising that the Facebook platform provides and which can be used to negative effect by advertisers. To me this is a clumsy, lazy attempt to make lazy platform censorship seem "good" in the way that regulating how Facebook treats data would be good, by coopting a popular topic only tangentially related
- prolikewhoa 9y ago
  That CNN article they quote is nothing more than CNN disliking that Youtube is challenging them in viewers and ad money. CNN isn't exactly the bastion of legitimacy and journalistic standards either. They're also trying to take down true left wing media like Jimmy Dore, painting him as a 'conspiracy theorist' for not being certain about the Syrian gas attacks before the OPCW was even there, as real journalists should do -- not just take talking points from the Pentagon. Cenk Uygur had to step in on TYT and denounce that stupid CNN article advocating for censorship and bring Jimmy out of that hole.
  - notacoward 9y ago
    > nothing more than CNN disliking that Youtube is challenging them in viewers and ad money Which is also what's behind journalists, bloggers, etc. all hating on Facebook too, but nobody ever wants to hear that.
    - prolikewhoa 9y ago
      That doesn't really make sense. Facebook is a large advertising platform for journalists and media that have existed for a very long time. It's not exactly a space for creators like Youtube.
      - notacoward 9y ago
        > Facebook is a large advertising platform for journalists and media That's outdated thinking; see my response to Mononokay. As much as a year ago, journalists might have seen it that way. What has changed, and why the tone has changed, is that almost no journalists today see Facebook as anything but a competitor. It doesn't even matter if they were right then or are right now, or both, or neither. That's just the zeitgeist.
Falell 9y ago
It's not next, it's already being targeted. The recent Right To Be Forgotten case touches on a theme I think we'll see again - "we don't like what society does with easy access to certain information, and companies that facilitate access to that information are going to face increased scrutiny".
DanBC 9y ago
> Child advocates have also raised alarms about the ease with which smartphone-equipped children are exposed to inappropriate videos and deceptive advertising. COPPA has unfortunate consequences. My 7 year old child watches youtube. He can't have an account, so he uses my account. Youtube thinks an > 18 year old is watching the videos, and so places ads for gambling and alcohol on the videos he watches. There's no mechanism to tell Google that: i) My child is under 18 and so cannot legally buy the products being advertised (and in the UK it's illegal to target alcohol to children) ii) I campaign against alcohol and gambling adverts, and that's the only reason they think I have an interest in the product. I'm never going to buy these products. The Youtube Kids product isn't available on my laptop, and he's not interested in many of those videos. And the fix seems simple enough: allow a toggle for "viewer is under 18".
- pjc50 9y ago
  It sounds like an adblocker would be responsible parenting best practice here.
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    Not letting a child on the web without an adblocker is, in general, responsible parenting. The ad industry is at its scummiest when it comes to ads targeted at kids (and it's been that way for decades, it's just especially visible on the web).
- prepend 9y ago
  That’s because Google doesn’t care because you let him watch. Lots of companies comply with coppa (Amazon, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft) and Google could if they carded enough. But even if their kids app was available on your laptop, it’s still inappropriate for kids. So you letting your kid watch YouTube as an 18 year old is a personal decision and not much to do with coppa existing or not existing.
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    Agree. My kids learned how to lie about year born when they were in grade school.
aphextron 9y ago
I trust Google, but it's only because I have to. Their tools are 10x better than anything else for many cases, so you're simply doing yourself a disservice to not use them. It's not like Facebook where I can just email my friends or whatever. Google search is a fundamentally life changing technology that is untouched by any competitor.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  >Their tools are 10x better than anything else for many cases, so you're simply doing yourself a disservice to not use them. I think that at this point that's basically only true for mapping, and they are losing ground on that, slowly. You've got stockholm syndrome.
  - Zhenya 9y ago
    I'll bite. What's actually better than: * Gmail * Search * Docs And all of the Integration that works cross platform for all of those.
    - rlv-dan 9y ago
      Define better. Does offline capability, ownership of data/applications, ability to modify your software and privacy concerns count, just as examples?
      - Zhenya 9y ago
        Simply using the terminology used by the OP and being refuted by the comment above.
    - Sir_Substance 9y ago
      >* Gmail Protonmail. Encrypted, ad free, and no one reading your email. >Search Duck Duck Go. Google is actually well past it's prime on this front. Their per-customer result filtering is now so aggressive that the filter bubble they apply to you is now an active impediment to web use. I generally find that I cannot replicate a google search on a different computer with the same search term, and about 20% of the time it is impossible to find the same result on a second computer. DDG's results are much more accurate to your search terms as written. >Docs Any desktop office suite, be it libre- of microsoft-. Unless multiplayer documents are a core component of your work (my commiserations if they are), google docs is objectively less capable as a professional grade editing suite than any of the major desktop based options, due to its considerably smaller and web-ui centric feature-set.
laythea 9y ago
I have already seen the reminder about privacy etc from google, which tells me they are nervous.
prolikewhoa 9y ago
What would happen to Google? Nothing happened to Facebook except a slap on the wrist. They'll continue doing everything they do and only a few of us nerds on the internet will really care. Americans have the attention span of fruit flies, which is why none of this actually matters long term.
matchagaucho 9y ago
Google knows far more about me than Facebook. But their product is not premised on my genuine identity, or the sharing of my social graph with apps. Google has been pretty good at preserving the illusion of "anonymous browsing".
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > their product is not premised on my genuine identity Their product to you may not be, but their primary revenue stream sure is based on the premise of knowing your genuine identity (including habits.)
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    Not really. Google does search ads based on what you are searching at that time. Plus Google does ads with a call back so no data leaves Google. The byproduct is ad blockers work by blocking the call back.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      They most definitely tailor ads to your personal data.
      - jacksmith21006 9y ago
        Target ads but do not sell personal data and have thought out a nice architecture so your data stays at Google. They use a call back for the ad so a third party site does not get any data. Also why ad blockers work.
        craftyguy 9y ago
        I never said they sold your personal data, I know they don't. But they still collect vast amounts of it that they use against you (advertising), and make available to governments if requested/ordered.
pjc50 9y ago
The key here is the reccomendation engine. Is an automatically-generated reccomendation an endorsement? If someone is watching "non-extreme" material and suddenly gets a conspiracy, far right, or propaganda video suggested to them, what responsibility does Google have for that reccomendation? To what extent is it possible for people to "self radicalise" from Youtube? (I've experienced this myself; an innocuous gaming video had a column of reccomended videos all relating to the same game .. and a livestream of Tommy Robinson. Why? Is Google radicalising gamers accidentally?)
- dijit 9y ago
  I have similar anecdotes regarding youtube. My feed often randomly recommends "SJW owned compilation" and "feminism fails". I may have watched one or two videos from prominent feminists and their supposed opposition in 2011 but google is really waiting for me to get back to that particular political fight for some reason. How long do I have to ignore something before it goes away? It reminds me of how in the UK the tabloid newspapers have audacious headlines but you're forced to read them because they are in the entrance of every store. I dont want to read about this. Leave me alone and stop filling my head with garbage.
  - wybiral 9y ago
    > My feed often randomly recommends "SJW owned compilation" and "feminism fails". I had the same videos queue up in mine and nothing I watch seems even remotely related to that. My YouTube usage is pretty "family friendly" so it struck me as particularly odd to see such blatantly divisive hate videos. I've even seen weird ads about deep state conspiracy stuff on there too. Their algorithms seem totally broken because I'm definitely not the right target for that stuff.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Where do these appear? If it's in the Recommendations, you can delete them, then a link appears called "Tell Us Why", and in that dialog you can see which video in your history influenced that recommendation (and tell it to stop recommending stuff based on it). It's always worked quite well for me. I have zero crap in my recommendations.
oflannabhra 9y ago
The spark that triggered the current firestorm Facebook is facing has nothing to do with Facebook’s practices—those have been apparent and obvious since before Facebook is as even a company. The spark was the confluence of divisive political headwinds and an outrage-driven news cycle. I’m thankful that spark has resulted in sustained scrutiny of Facebook, but without a similar environment and controversy, I doubt Google will find itself in a hot seat. Maybe such a controversy is waiting for Google. I hope so, they’ve gathered far more data about me and my interests than Facebook ever will.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- oflannabhra 9y ago
  I’ll add a thought: The great irony in Facebook’s situation is that it is purely the result of hubris. In 2010, Zuckerberg saw FB as the next great platform. The API was released to much acclaim. But the API essentially gave away the keys to the kingdom! Facebook either 1) didn’t realize that they weren’t a platform and the social graph was the most valuable information they possessed, and were blinded by ignorance, or 2) didn’t want to be “just” an advertisement business, and was blinded by hubris. Maybe it was a bit of both, but given how engineering driven FB is, I’d guess there was a healthy dose of #2, and probably still is.
  - GauntletWizard 9y ago
    In 2010, Facebook's revenue was significantly driven by something other than ads - Social Games. Zynga and the like were raking in billions based on people clicking virtual cows, and Facebook was getting a cut. Promoting these kinds of uses was their goal. It's easy to see modern Ad-Driven FB and forget that there were other eras of the company.
    - oflannabhra 9y ago
      Yes, hindsight is 20/20. However, Google was smart enough to see the endgame: knowing people’s interests is some of the most valuable information available to advertisers, ever. What Facebook has, and what they essentially gave away for free, is far more valuable than whatever revenue they generated as a “platform.” The fact FB was generating revenue as a platform in 2010 has more to do with their strategy (which was lacking at the time) than with the value of the information they had. I’m suggesting they Zuckerberg’s hubris prevented him from seeing the value of what FB already was, and how to monetize that.
ben_jones 9y ago
If congress couldn't grok how Facebook operates I doubt they will be able to grok Google who in my opinion has a much more indirect (manipulative) way of getting people to view ads and gather data to show ads.
dawhizkid 9y ago
If you frame the question as "how much value do I get from X in exchange for my data?" I think the answer is clear that Google > Facebook. G Search, Gmail, Analytics, Docs, YT (original home of Khan Academy) etc. all contribute to my learning and productivity...with FB the total opposite.
- hierux 9y ago
  You're right. This is an important point to keep in mind to maintain perspective.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  That's true for you, but is it true for most people? I know many who get a lot more value out of staying in touch with friends/family than they do with Google products.
- antod 9y ago
  Good point about the benefit side of the equation, but also on the cost side even though Google probably knows much more about me I'd still trust Google more than Facebook to not leak that data to someone else.
justinzollars 9y ago
Concerned that google has so much info (https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity) I visited https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols to turn off Web & App Activity, but left Voice & Audio Activity on. This breaks my google home. I do not want Google to save 20 years of search history so I can use a stupid google home. For the first time I'm considering Apple's device. This is a dark pattern Google
- AJ007 9y ago
  I’m waiting for an answer to this: will the least invasive platforms end up the least intelligent?
  - jes5199 9y ago
    what's so great about "intelligent" platforms? They're constantly doing something wrong or at least useless.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      The level of frustration in trying to get Siri to do something when you can’t use your hands is quite something. I’d like something a bit better.
  - Eridrus 9y ago
    Almost certainly, if they don't know anything about you they can at best show the median/average outcome. Some of this can be counteracted with local processing, but that's not really hardware efficient, e.g. you wouldn't consider running a Google instance on everyone's phone. Breakthroughs in how we do computation could change this, but it would need to be a significant breakthrough, e.g. in homomorphic encryption and differential privacy or huge progress in compute/storage price/density/energy usage.
    - mattmanser 9y ago
      It's also counter to how our industry's gone, everything's cloud these days, not just because of their insatiable need to feast on our privacy, but also because it's easier to maintain, upgrade, etc. and effectively cuts piracy to nothing.
samfisher83 9y ago
The fact that google assistant won't even work without enabling web&app activity really pisses me off. Most of time I use the voice controls to set timer or notes. Why does it need my web history to do that?
- mirceal 9y ago
  Alexa, turn off Google Assistant. In all seriousness, this is just sad.
thathappened 9y ago
We're learning that good is relative so do no evil can't mean anything good for us, long-term, unless we're Google.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Use a lot of Google services and never had an issue with my data. Plus Google will secure far better than anyone else.
sirmike_ 9y ago
No.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Google provides a dashboard with everything including ability to remove or even download. Wish we could get the same from Apple. Do not think Google has the same issues as FB.
yuhong 9y ago
I wrote an essay on this exact topic: http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-mozilla-essay-final.html http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-mozi...
fourthark 9y ago
Next Google. Then we forget about it forever.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Might not be a popular view but my biggest issue is Apple and transparency on what they collect. Google has a fantastic dashboard with everything and ability to remove or even download. Apple privacy agreement allows them to collect a ton of private data but that is it. You agree and no idea what they are doing with your data. Read the agreement. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ Legal - Privacy Policy - Apple I do not like big gov but would be good with Apple forced to create a dashboard exactly like Google provides.
- bilbo0s 9y ago
  ??? I'm genuinely confused here. Are you implying that you are OK with Google-scale intrusive data collection as long as you get a convenient dashboard with it? While it might seem magnanimous of them to allow you to download from their system, (your own data no less), I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that arrangement. The way the T&C of all these companies are written, you have no way of validating the deletion of your data in a comprehensive fashion, there are no provisions for you to look under the hood, and there are explicit reservations outlined with respect to government related obligations. I'm not comfortable with any of these companies, but knowing that Google has all of my searches, (desktop AND mobile), for the past 10 or 15 years, youtube view history, etc etc etc worries me a bit more than the fact that Apple knows what apps I've downloaded. Personally, I would rate them as follows: HIGH PRIORITY CONCERNS: Google and Facebook PRIORITY CONCERNS: AT&T Amazon SECONDARY CONCERNS: Netflix Apple Pandora etc To put it in layman's terms: Apple knows what apps I've downloaded. AT&T knows where I've been. But Google and Facebook know all of that PLUS what porn I like, what I REALLY think of my boss, what I've been posting "anonymously" to different web forums, and they have a pretty good idea which of my S/O's friends I think are hotter than her. Which one do you think I'm more worried about?
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    The problem is Apple had an agreement that let's them collect as much data as Google yet they are not transparent like Google on what they actually have right now and enable me to remove like Google. Plus Google let's you even download and have no such option from Apple. I try to keep all my data at Google and no where else when possible but I have both a Pixel and an iPhone and do not know what is at Apple. I do use Google DNS and Google services including Chrome. I use Google DNS everywhere, 8.8.8.8, to keep my internet browsing away from my wireless and isp providers. I also use chrome data saver to keep browsing data at Google. We now have YouTube TV so now keep my viewing data away from our cable provider. We have Google WiFi which made the DNS easy as how it comes. I have a pixel book and wife CB+ and kids Acer 14s and 15s so keep my data away from MS and all at Google. We switched our Echo to the Google home so my home auto data at Google. We have Nest for everything they offer a product. We do have Phillips lights but wish Google would do bulbs. Then we use Gmail. Maps, YT, and Duo. The areas we leak our Netflix as nothing from Google. Also Amazon for shopping but try to limit. Really almost nothing with MS. But Apple has my iMessages and data from me using my iPhone which is an issue for me as I do not know what they have and that bugs me and is not right. Our biggest issue is I have 8 kids and can not use Fi because of cost so my location data is at my wireless provider. This is a big one where you could use Google and protect your data as Google fi is anonymous to the underneath carriers. Trouble is the cost is too much.
cromwellian 9y ago
An article about YouTube censorship/kids exposed to bad videos and 98% of the replies don’t talk about the content of the article at all.
drawkbox 9y ago
Yes, because ISPs are pushing this and they now have all their net neutrality abolishment and private protection removals in place, all that money can now go to all out assaults on Facebook, Google and any other competitors in the ad space. Part of ISPs justification for removing privacy protections via bribes was to allow them to compete with Facebook/Google. As seen with removing ISP privacy protections from the FCC to help them get net neutrality removed, ISPs don't give up when it comes to using their local monopolies and bribing their way into markets rather than competing with products built on it that people want like Facebook/Google. Right now ISP money isn't being spent on innovation or expansion of their network capabilities, it is being spent to combat competition in areas they want to move into such as the ad network/tracking space, network throttling/data caps and more. ISPs also want to be the implementers of the internet filters that will be arriving soon to be broad censorship and stifle competition [1]. They are also big on helping the surveillance state and will get shared data to use in their ad networks [2]. The ISPs are helping build the network that will be more like hotel wifi than the internet we know and love today. If the ISPs do one thing well it is stifling competition to create near monopolies because they don't like to compete building actual quality or products to compete next to market leaders, they bribe and use their local monopolies to get in. [1] https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is-advancing-under-trump/ https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is-advanci... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
remir 9y ago
I think what Eelo is trying to achieve is interesting. They forked LineageOS, but they understood that nowadays a smartphone is not that smart without services (email, map, contact/cal sync, etc), so they plan to develop their own services that respect privacy. Now, will these services be on par with Google's? Of course not, but if they're good enough, it could be a game changer.
- notatoad 9y ago
  This was essentially what Cyanogen was doing before they went bust (in cooperation with microsoft). Providing a "good enough" service in a sustainable way is very, very difficult. Maybe you can make the service happen, but services require a continuing revenue stream, and that is hard. Especially when you don't own the platform, you don't own the hardware, and your only selling point is that you'll promise to ignore the biggest potential revenue source.
zmmmmm 9y ago
This seems like a fairly superficial argument to me. Facebook is mostly getting scrutiny for specific problems that Google has managed (whether by luck or otherwise) to avoid and which have little connection to the main argument of the article around advertising on YouTube. To me, the equating of these two companies is actually harmful because then we are failing to distinguish why Facebook specifically was such a powerful vector into the 2016 election. Both companies present privacy concerns, but they are definitely not the same in their approach and we should be carefully looking at those differences for their instructive value, not lumping them together.
blackrock 9y ago
This may be the minority opinion here. But Facebook, Google, and all these other shady companies that collects massive personal data, in ways that were never envisioned of being collected. They need to be reigned in. They have overstepped their boundaries of what is socially acceptable. Facebook should just call themselves the FBIbook, because they have amassed such huge amounts of private data on us. And they have also done unethical things like creating fake dark profiles of you, or your children, and tracked them on their usage of the internet. This is egregious. The creepiest thing by far, is their usage of facial scanning, to create a facial biometric of you. Their technology is probably something that the FBI has wet dreams of having. And they use this to identify you in any and all pictures on the internet. Their next move, might be to actually partner up with brick-and-mortar stores, or CCTV surveillance cameras, to get a real time biometric identification on people. All the CCTV cameras at Walmart, Target, and in the malls, will get fed into the Facebook brain, and Facebook can build a real time tracking system as you wander through their digital surveillance system. I just want to go to the mall and enjoy an ice cream with my loved ones. I'm not interested in getting tracked by Facebook's creepy surveillance system. This is akin to walking around in a digital virtual prison, that we can never escape from. And once this technology is built, then it will get expanded everywhere. To every single street corner camera, and combined with your smartphone's GPS, it's the perfect thing to track you everywhere. Just to sell you an ad, for something that you don't want to buy. If you thought they make a lot of money now, by selling ads on their platform. Just imagine when they decide to go down this route. Their revenue and profit potential will explode! And they will be unstoppable.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Same with Apple? I mean they basically sold all their user data in China. "Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud users" https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy... Versus Google chose to not sell their user data in China and left.
s2g 9y ago
Probably not. Wish they would be, but probably not.
CrusadeR2018 9y ago
Wow, who has time to read such tons of BS and subjective personal opinions, all vapor-ware and nothing for sure? And if companies are crossing lines, why doesn't law the almighty spread it's long arm and catch and punish the whole thugs? Why law can't or won't stop illegal business practices? And it it can't or won't; then who are the government and law enforcement bastards to force law on law-abiding average normal people? Why not everyone throw the law away, behave whatever they please and do whatever they want? Why not? If there are lo laws of the land then there are no lands. This is very clear to me. Someone started by disobeying laws and such dis-obedience got freedom to some. If governments are not fair, do not practice what they preach; then we are all free to do whatever we want, including burning down evil companies and shooting down every evil employee of such companies, including CEO and everyone, if law has not to be applied to them and if they are above the rules, so we are too, in fact, then everyone else is also to be above the rules. Wow, we are entering an utopia now!!
CrusadeR2018 9y ago
And I don't know, but we are for sure are cowards. We have lost which bought us the Independence and the Independence Day has merely been a calendar event for us. We have lost everything which defined a human, now we are all slave to cahoots and cartels, we have lost everything, everything now gone with the wind. Now there are no more great people, no more prophets arriving now (they have stopped it since 2018 years at least!!), now everyone is so enlightened that such middle-ages prophets have all suddenly lost all the steam to arrive in the world again!! Now only an alien invasion or Muslim migration (as it happening right now in Germany and Europe everywhere) can or at least has a potential to relight my, your and our fire!! Sorry for being an sub-dues humans, we are now going to sleep. Good Night,..people.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

311 points by dnetesn 9y ago

Congress should take action, and install a watchdog that continuously monitors these companies; e.g. by verifying that data placed online cannot be bought through different channels.

koolba 9y ago
So a USDA style on-site meat inspector but for data?
SN76477 9y ago
That isnt going to happen under the current deregulatory administration.
- leeoniya 9y ago
  it's unlikely to happen in any administration. proactive monitoring is cost prohibitive compared to reactive punishment and a legal framework for doing so. as you said, the latter is unlikely to be meaningfully strengthened. fines and enforcement must present a significantly larger liability than profit opportunity for any real changes to ever take place. else it's just written down as another expense of doing business as usual.
  - ianai 9y ago
    On the other side, it sounds like a job that needs to be done 24/7 and could be done remotely. Precisely the sort of thing that could employ rural America with suitable infrastructure build-out.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > proactive monitoring is cost prohibitive compared to reactive punishment and a legal framework for doing so Counterfactual: finance, another high-margin industry with a penchant for bad decision making, funds a proactive and multi-pronged regulatory apparatus. We are all safer for it.
    - leeoniya 9y ago
      in large part this is made easier because most money travels by known and monitored channels (banks, businesses certified to be money transmitters, etc) with very little going via cash. data on the other hand is a much more diverse & fluid asset that travels via a million unmonitored/encrypted channels and can be copied easily. if all money could be easily copied and most transactions were in cash, proactive regulation would be too expensive. i think.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > data on the other hand is a much more diverse & fluid asset that travels via a million unmonitored/encrypted channels and can be copied easily Securities are quite diverse. And people regularly try to get around securities regulation by calling their securities "stamps" or "tokens" or "coins" or whatever. A regulator for social media companies over a certain size might not be a bad idea. (My preference is consumer controls with strict penalties for non-compliance, à la how Illinois governs biometric data [1].) [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-facebook-tagging-privacy-lawsuit-20180417-story,amp.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-facebook-taggi...
  - amelius 9y ago
    > proactive monitoring is cost prohibitive compared to reactive punishment and a legal framework for doing so Just let ad networks pay for it. Ad networks had a chance of self-regulation but they failed. Also, how are you going to catch them if you don't watch them?
mudil 9y ago
That is wrong way to approach the issue. These companies should not be gathering personal information worse than NSA. Personal information is personal, and free people in a free society should not be followed by multinational corporations.
- ianai 9y ago
  I like your sentiment but we’re talking serious company breakups in order to force it. Pretty much most industries could use some trust-busting but the political imperative (outrage) isn’t directed that way.
- AJ007 9y ago
  At least the targeting is advertising and not drone strikes.
  - hedora 9y ago
    I’m sorry, but trying to draw this distinction is dangerously naive. In order to get decent ad targeting for most industries, they need more than enough information than is needed to target a drone strike. They are legally obligated to share this information with multiple governments (including the US) that openly and routinely engage in extra-judicial killings of civilians. The only solutions to this moral quandary are to either (a) change multiple governments, some democratically elected, some not, or to (b) simply not gather the information in the first place. Google has already tried and failed at option (a), and option (b) would eliminate the vast majority of their revenue.
- kodablah 9y ago
  > free people in a free society should not be followed by multinational corporations Rather, free people should be allowed to choose. And free people are the ones making these companies too.
UncleMeat 9y ago
Why would google ever sell data? Surely it is their greatest asset?
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Google would be the last to sell your data as they know better then anyone the value. This and security is why I try to centralize my data at Google. In the US an ISP can sell your data without you even knowing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/04/04/isps-can-now-collect-and-sell-your-data-what-know-internet-privacy/100015356/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/04/04/isps-can... ISPs can now collect and sell your data: What to know ... - USA Today
  - amelius 9y ago
    But they do sell your data. For example, let's say a bad actor creates a Google ad for pizzas, directed at gay people. Now if you see and click that pizza ad, the bad actor will know your sexual orientation.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      No they won't. They'll know that there exists a person who probably likes pizza and is gay. They don't know who that person is.
      - amelius 9y ago
        They do. The first step is that you are only shown the ad if you are gay. This means that if somebody clicks the ad, then they must be gay. The second step is that if you click the ad and order the pizza, the pizza company (=bad actor) will ask for your details (e.g. name, address). This information can then be coupled to your sexual orientation. And this happens without you knowing. All you think is that you are ordering pizza.
        Gigablah 9y ago

alvil 9y ago

Sure Thing! Google is the next. http://fortune.com/2018/01/26/george-soros-facebook-google-engineer-addiction/ http://fortune.com/2018/01/26/george-soros-facebook-google-e...

cdancette 9y ago

Next is passing laws to avoid those kind of problems (like GDPR). It's not sufficient to go after each shady company that sells your data.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Exactly. There has to be a framework that everyone has to follow. Imagine we had no laws against theft and you would get into trouble only if you overdid it by some undefined standard
- matte_black 9y ago
  No, it’s more like people leaving shit all over your property and when you go pick it up they come back and want to charge you with theft.
  - SahAssar 9y ago
    No, it's like inviting people over for a casual party and then recording everything from 15 different angles, including in the bathroom, and then hiring a few people on every street in the town to photograph everyone walking down that street so that you can cross-reference those photos to your candid bathroom shots. And then you let some other people get those photos because "Chad who was at that party said it was OK with him".
MarkMc 9y ago
GDPR isn't very effective in that regard. 98% of Facebook users will just click 'Agree and Continue' when promoted, giving Facebook the legal right to buy/sell whatever data they want.
- cdancette 9y ago
  GDPR is just a first step and obviously is not the whole solution to this problem. But I believe it's a necessary step, even if not perfect.

opportune 9y ago

This article is about (in favor of) censoring the youtube platform to make life easier for advertisers. That doesn't seem very related to the information leaks and level of granular individualized advertising that the Facebook platform provides and which can be used to negative effect by advertisers. To me this is a clumsy, lazy attempt to make lazy platform censorship seem "good" in the way that regulating how Facebook treats data would be good, by coopting a popular topic only tangentially related

prolikewhoa 9y ago
That CNN article they quote is nothing more than CNN disliking that Youtube is challenging them in viewers and ad money. CNN isn't exactly the bastion of legitimacy and journalistic standards either. They're also trying to take down true left wing media like Jimmy Dore, painting him as a 'conspiracy theorist' for not being certain about the Syrian gas attacks before the OPCW was even there, as real journalists should do -- not just take talking points from the Pentagon. Cenk Uygur had to step in on TYT and denounce that stupid CNN article advocating for censorship and bring Jimmy out of that hole.
- notacoward 9y ago
  > nothing more than CNN disliking that Youtube is challenging them in viewers and ad money Which is also what's behind journalists, bloggers, etc. all hating on Facebook too, but nobody ever wants to hear that.
  - prolikewhoa 9y ago
    That doesn't really make sense. Facebook is a large advertising platform for journalists and media that have existed for a very long time. It's not exactly a space for creators like Youtube.
    - notacoward 9y ago
      > Facebook is a large advertising platform for journalists and media That's outdated thinking; see my response to Mononokay. As much as a year ago, journalists might have seen it that way. What has changed, and why the tone has changed, is that almost no journalists today see Facebook as anything but a competitor. It doesn't even matter if they were right then or are right now, or both, or neither. That's just the zeitgeist.

Falell 9y ago

It's not next, it's already being targeted. The recent Right To Be Forgotten case touches on a theme I think we'll see again - "we don't like what society does with easy access to certain information, and companies that facilitate access to that information are going to face increased scrutiny".

DanBC 9y ago

> Child advocates have also raised alarms about the ease with which smartphone-equipped children are exposed to inappropriate videos and deceptive advertising. COPPA has unfortunate consequences. My 7 year old child watches youtube. He can't have an account, so he uses my account. Youtube thinks an > 18 year old is watching the videos, and so places ads for gambling and alcohol on the videos he watches. There's no mechanism to tell Google that: i) My child is under 18 and so cannot legally buy the products being advertised (and in the UK it's illegal to target alcohol to children) ii) I campaign against alcohol and gambling adverts, and that's the only reason they think I have an interest in the product. I'm never going to buy these products. The Youtube Kids product isn't available on my laptop, and he's not interested in many of those videos. And the fix seems simple enough: allow a toggle for "viewer is under 18".

pjc50 9y ago
It sounds like an adblocker would be responsible parenting best practice here.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  Not letting a child on the web without an adblocker is, in general, responsible parenting. The ad industry is at its scummiest when it comes to ads targeted at kids (and it's been that way for decades, it's just especially visible on the web).
prepend 9y ago
That’s because Google doesn’t care because you let him watch. Lots of companies comply with coppa (Amazon, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft) and Google could if they carded enough. But even if their kids app was available on your laptop, it’s still inappropriate for kids. So you letting your kid watch YouTube as an 18 year old is a personal decision and not much to do with coppa existing or not existing.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Agree. My kids learned how to lie about year born when they were in grade school.

aphextron 9y ago

I trust Google, but it's only because I have to. Their tools are 10x better than anything else for many cases, so you're simply doing yourself a disservice to not use them. It's not like Facebook where I can just email my friends or whatever. Google search is a fundamentally life changing technology that is untouched by any competitor.

Sir_Substance 9y ago
>Their tools are 10x better than anything else for many cases, so you're simply doing yourself a disservice to not use them. I think that at this point that's basically only true for mapping, and they are losing ground on that, slowly. You've got stockholm syndrome.
- Zhenya 9y ago
  I'll bite. What's actually better than: * Gmail * Search * Docs And all of the Integration that works cross platform for all of those.
  - rlv-dan 9y ago
    Define better. Does offline capability, ownership of data/applications, ability to modify your software and privacy concerns count, just as examples?
    - Zhenya 9y ago
      Simply using the terminology used by the OP and being refuted by the comment above.
  - Sir_Substance 9y ago
    >* Gmail Protonmail. Encrypted, ad free, and no one reading your email. >Search Duck Duck Go. Google is actually well past it's prime on this front. Their per-customer result filtering is now so aggressive that the filter bubble they apply to you is now an active impediment to web use. I generally find that I cannot replicate a google search on a different computer with the same search term, and about 20% of the time it is impossible to find the same result on a second computer. DDG's results are much more accurate to your search terms as written. >Docs Any desktop office suite, be it libre- of microsoft-. Unless multiplayer documents are a core component of your work (my commiserations if they are), google docs is objectively less capable as a professional grade editing suite than any of the major desktop based options, due to its considerably smaller and web-ui centric feature-set.

laythea 9y ago

I have already seen the reminder about privacy etc from google, which tells me they are nervous.

prolikewhoa 9y ago

What would happen to Google? Nothing happened to Facebook except a slap on the wrist. They'll continue doing everything they do and only a few of us nerds on the internet will really care. Americans have the attention span of fruit flies, which is why none of this actually matters long term.

matchagaucho 9y ago

Google knows far more about me than Facebook. But their product is not premised on my genuine identity, or the sharing of my social graph with apps. Google has been pretty good at preserving the illusion of "anonymous browsing".

craftyguy 9y ago
> their product is not premised on my genuine identity Their product to you may not be, but their primary revenue stream sure is based on the premise of knowing your genuine identity (including habits.)
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Not really. Google does search ads based on what you are searching at that time. Plus Google does ads with a call back so no data leaves Google. The byproduct is ad blockers work by blocking the call back.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    They most definitely tailor ads to your personal data.
    - jacksmith21006 9y ago
      Target ads but do not sell personal data and have thought out a nice architecture so your data stays at Google. They use a call back for the ad so a third party site does not get any data. Also why ad blockers work.
      - craftyguy 9y ago
        I never said they sold your personal data, I know they don't. But they still collect vast amounts of it that they use against you (advertising), and make available to governments if requested/ordered.

pjc50 9y ago

The key here is the reccomendation engine. Is an automatically-generated reccomendation an endorsement? If someone is watching "non-extreme" material and suddenly gets a conspiracy, far right, or propaganda video suggested to them, what responsibility does Google have for that reccomendation? To what extent is it possible for people to "self radicalise" from Youtube? (I've experienced this myself; an innocuous gaming video had a column of reccomended videos all relating to the same game .. and a livestream of Tommy Robinson. Why? Is Google radicalising gamers accidentally?)

dijit 9y ago
I have similar anecdotes regarding youtube. My feed often randomly recommends "SJW owned compilation" and "feminism fails". I may have watched one or two videos from prominent feminists and their supposed opposition in 2011 but google is really waiting for me to get back to that particular political fight for some reason. How long do I have to ignore something before it goes away? It reminds me of how in the UK the tabloid newspapers have audacious headlines but you're forced to read them because they are in the entrance of every store. I dont want to read about this. Leave me alone and stop filling my head with garbage.
- wybiral 9y ago
  > My feed often randomly recommends "SJW owned compilation" and "feminism fails". I had the same videos queue up in mine and nothing I watch seems even remotely related to that. My YouTube usage is pretty "family friendly" so it struck me as particularly odd to see such blatantly divisive hate videos. I've even seen weird ads about deep state conspiracy stuff on there too. Their algorithms seem totally broken because I'm definitely not the right target for that stuff.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Where do these appear? If it's in the Recommendations, you can delete them, then a link appears called "Tell Us Why", and in that dialog you can see which video in your history influenced that recommendation (and tell it to stop recommending stuff based on it). It's always worked quite well for me. I have zero crap in my recommendations.

oflannabhra 9y ago

The spark that triggered the current firestorm Facebook is facing has nothing to do with Facebook’s practices—those have been apparent and obvious since before Facebook is as even a company. The spark was the confluence of divisive political headwinds and an outrage-driven news cycle. I’m thankful that spark has resulted in sustained scrutiny of Facebook, but without a similar environment and controversy, I doubt Google will find itself in a hot seat. Maybe such a controversy is waiting for Google. I hope so, they’ve gathered far more data about me and my interests than Facebook ever will.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
oflannabhra 9y ago
I’ll add a thought: The great irony in Facebook’s situation is that it is purely the result of hubris. In 2010, Zuckerberg saw FB as the next great platform. The API was released to much acclaim. But the API essentially gave away the keys to the kingdom! Facebook either 1) didn’t realize that they weren’t a platform and the social graph was the most valuable information they possessed, and were blinded by ignorance, or 2) didn’t want to be “just” an advertisement business, and was blinded by hubris. Maybe it was a bit of both, but given how engineering driven FB is, I’d guess there was a healthy dose of #2, and probably still is.
- GauntletWizard 9y ago
  In 2010, Facebook's revenue was significantly driven by something other than ads - Social Games. Zynga and the like were raking in billions based on people clicking virtual cows, and Facebook was getting a cut. Promoting these kinds of uses was their goal. It's easy to see modern Ad-Driven FB and forget that there were other eras of the company.
  - oflannabhra 9y ago
    Yes, hindsight is 20/20. However, Google was smart enough to see the endgame: knowing people’s interests is some of the most valuable information available to advertisers, ever. What Facebook has, and what they essentially gave away for free, is far more valuable than whatever revenue they generated as a “platform.” The fact FB was generating revenue as a platform in 2010 has more to do with their strategy (which was lacking at the time) than with the value of the information they had. I’m suggesting they Zuckerberg’s hubris prevented him from seeing the value of what FB already was, and how to monetize that.

ben_jones 9y ago

If congress couldn't grok how Facebook operates I doubt they will be able to grok Google who in my opinion has a much more indirect (manipulative) way of getting people to view ads and gather data to show ads.

dawhizkid 9y ago

If you frame the question as "how much value do I get from X in exchange for my data?" I think the answer is clear that Google > Facebook. G Search, Gmail, Analytics, Docs, YT (original home of Khan Academy) etc. all contribute to my learning and productivity...with FB the total opposite.

hierux 9y ago
You're right. This is an important point to keep in mind to maintain perspective.
BeetleB 9y ago
That's true for you, but is it true for most people? I know many who get a lot more value out of staying in touch with friends/family than they do with Google products.
antod 9y ago
Good point about the benefit side of the equation, but also on the cost side even though Google probably knows much more about me I'd still trust Google more than Facebook to not leak that data to someone else.

justinzollars 9y ago

Concerned that google has so much info (https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity) I visited https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols to turn off Web & App Activity, but left Voice & Audio Activity on. This breaks my google home. I do not want Google to save 20 years of search history so I can use a stupid google home. For the first time I'm considering Apple's device. This is a dark pattern Google

AJ007 9y ago
I’m waiting for an answer to this: will the least invasive platforms end up the least intelligent?
- jes5199 9y ago
  what's so great about "intelligent" platforms? They're constantly doing something wrong or at least useless.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    The level of frustration in trying to get Siri to do something when you can’t use your hands is quite something. I’d like something a bit better.
- Eridrus 9y ago
  Almost certainly, if they don't know anything about you they can at best show the median/average outcome. Some of this can be counteracted with local processing, but that's not really hardware efficient, e.g. you wouldn't consider running a Google instance on everyone's phone. Breakthroughs in how we do computation could change this, but it would need to be a significant breakthrough, e.g. in homomorphic encryption and differential privacy or huge progress in compute/storage price/density/energy usage.
  - mattmanser 9y ago
    It's also counter to how our industry's gone, everything's cloud these days, not just because of their insatiable need to feast on our privacy, but also because it's easier to maintain, upgrade, etc. and effectively cuts piracy to nothing.

samfisher83 9y ago

The fact that google assistant won't even work without enabling web&app activity really pisses me off. Most of time I use the voice controls to set timer or notes. Why does it need my web history to do that?

mirceal 9y ago
Alexa, turn off Google Assistant. In all seriousness, this is just sad.

thathappened 9y ago

We're learning that good is relative so do no evil can't mean anything good for us, long-term, unless we're Google.

jacksmith21006 9y ago
Use a lot of Google services and never had an issue with my data. Plus Google will secure far better than anyone else.

sirmike_ 9y ago

No.

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Google provides a dashboard with everything including ability to remove or even download. Wish we could get the same from Apple. Do not think Google has the same issues as FB.

yuhong 9y ago

I wrote an essay on this exact topic: http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-mozilla-essay-final.html http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-mozi...

fourthark 9y ago

Next Google. Then we forget about it forever.

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Might not be a popular view but my biggest issue is Apple and transparency on what they collect. Google has a fantastic dashboard with everything and ability to remove or even download. Apple privacy agreement allows them to collect a ton of private data but that is it. You agree and no idea what they are doing with your data. Read the agreement. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ Legal - Privacy Policy - Apple I do not like big gov but would be good with Apple forced to create a dashboard exactly like Google provides.

bilbo0s 9y ago
??? I'm genuinely confused here. Are you implying that you are OK with Google-scale intrusive data collection as long as you get a convenient dashboard with it? While it might seem magnanimous of them to allow you to download from their system, (your own data no less), I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that arrangement. The way the T&C of all these companies are written, you have no way of validating the deletion of your data in a comprehensive fashion, there are no provisions for you to look under the hood, and there are explicit reservations outlined with respect to government related obligations. I'm not comfortable with any of these companies, but knowing that Google has all of my searches, (desktop AND mobile), for the past 10 or 15 years, youtube view history, etc etc etc worries me a bit more than the fact that Apple knows what apps I've downloaded. Personally, I would rate them as follows: HIGH PRIORITY CONCERNS: Google and Facebook PRIORITY CONCERNS: AT&T Amazon SECONDARY CONCERNS: Netflix Apple Pandora etc To put it in layman's terms: Apple knows what apps I've downloaded. AT&T knows where I've been. But Google and Facebook know all of that PLUS what porn I like, what I REALLY think of my boss, what I've been posting "anonymously" to different web forums, and they have a pretty good idea which of my S/O's friends I think are hotter than her. Which one do you think I'm more worried about?
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  The problem is Apple had an agreement that let's them collect as much data as Google yet they are not transparent like Google on what they actually have right now and enable me to remove like Google. Plus Google let's you even download and have no such option from Apple. I try to keep all my data at Google and no where else when possible but I have both a Pixel and an iPhone and do not know what is at Apple. I do use Google DNS and Google services including Chrome. I use Google DNS everywhere, 8.8.8.8, to keep my internet browsing away from my wireless and isp providers. I also use chrome data saver to keep browsing data at Google. We now have YouTube TV so now keep my viewing data away from our cable provider. We have Google WiFi which made the DNS easy as how it comes. I have a pixel book and wife CB+ and kids Acer 14s and 15s so keep my data away from MS and all at Google. We switched our Echo to the Google home so my home auto data at Google. We have Nest for everything they offer a product. We do have Phillips lights but wish Google would do bulbs. Then we use Gmail. Maps, YT, and Duo. The areas we leak our Netflix as nothing from Google. Also Amazon for shopping but try to limit. Really almost nothing with MS. But Apple has my iMessages and data from me using my iPhone which is an issue for me as I do not know what they have and that bugs me and is not right. Our biggest issue is I have 8 kids and can not use Fi because of cost so my location data is at my wireless provider. This is a big one where you could use Google and protect your data as Google fi is anonymous to the underneath carriers. Trouble is the cost is too much.

cromwellian 9y ago

An article about YouTube censorship/kids exposed to bad videos and 98% of the replies don’t talk about the content of the article at all.

drawkbox 9y ago

Yes, because ISPs are pushing this and they now have all their net neutrality abolishment and private protection removals in place, all that money can now go to all out assaults on Facebook, Google and any other competitors in the ad space. Part of ISPs justification for removing privacy protections via bribes was to allow them to compete with Facebook/Google. As seen with removing ISP privacy protections from the FCC to help them get net neutrality removed, ISPs don't give up when it comes to using their local monopolies and bribing their way into markets rather than competing with products built on it that people want like Facebook/Google. Right now ISP money isn't being spent on innovation or expansion of their network capabilities, it is being spent to combat competition in areas they want to move into such as the ad network/tracking space, network throttling/data caps and more. ISPs also want to be the implementers of the internet filters that will be arriving soon to be broad censorship and stifle competition [1]. They are also big on helping the surveillance state and will get shared data to use in their ad networks [2]. The ISPs are helping build the network that will be more like hotel wifi than the internet we know and love today. If the ISPs do one thing well it is stifling competition to create near monopolies because they don't like to compete building actual quality or products to compete next to market leaders, they bribe and use their local monopolies to get in. [1] https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is-advancing-under-trump/ https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is-advanci... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

remir 9y ago

I think what Eelo is trying to achieve is interesting. They forked LineageOS, but they understood that nowadays a smartphone is not that smart without services (email, map, contact/cal sync, etc), so they plan to develop their own services that respect privacy. Now, will these services be on par with Google's? Of course not, but if they're good enough, it could be a game changer.

notatoad 9y ago
This was essentially what Cyanogen was doing before they went bust (in cooperation with microsoft). Providing a "good enough" service in a sustainable way is very, very difficult. Maybe you can make the service happen, but services require a continuing revenue stream, and that is hard. Especially when you don't own the platform, you don't own the hardware, and your only selling point is that you'll promise to ignore the biggest potential revenue source.

zmmmmm 9y ago

This seems like a fairly superficial argument to me. Facebook is mostly getting scrutiny for specific problems that Google has managed (whether by luck or otherwise) to avoid and which have little connection to the main argument of the article around advertising on YouTube. To me, the equating of these two companies is actually harmful because then we are failing to distinguish why Facebook specifically was such a powerful vector into the 2016 election. Both companies present privacy concerns, but they are definitely not the same in their approach and we should be carefully looking at those differences for their instructive value, not lumping them together.

blackrock 9y ago

This may be the minority opinion here. But Facebook, Google, and all these other shady companies that collects massive personal data, in ways that were never envisioned of being collected. They need to be reigned in. They have overstepped their boundaries of what is socially acceptable. Facebook should just call themselves the FBIbook, because they have amassed such huge amounts of private data on us. And they have also done unethical things like creating fake dark profiles of you, or your children, and tracked them on their usage of the internet. This is egregious. The creepiest thing by far, is their usage of facial scanning, to create a facial biometric of you. Their technology is probably something that the FBI has wet dreams of having. And they use this to identify you in any and all pictures on the internet. Their next move, might be to actually partner up with brick-and-mortar stores, or CCTV surveillance cameras, to get a real time biometric identification on people. All the CCTV cameras at Walmart, Target, and in the malls, will get fed into the Facebook brain, and Facebook can build a real time tracking system as you wander through their digital surveillance system. I just want to go to the mall and enjoy an ice cream with my loved ones. I'm not interested in getting tracked by Facebook's creepy surveillance system. This is akin to walking around in a digital virtual prison, that we can never escape from. And once this technology is built, then it will get expanded everywhere. To every single street corner camera, and combined with your smartphone's GPS, it's the perfect thing to track you everywhere. Just to sell you an ad, for something that you don't want to buy. If you thought they make a lot of money now, by selling ads on their platform. Just imagine when they decide to go down this route. Their revenue and profit potential will explode! And they will be unstoppable.

jacksmith21006 9y ago
Same with Apple? I mean they basically sold all their user data in China. "Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud users" https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy... Versus Google chose to not sell their user data in China and left.

s2g 9y ago

Probably not. Wish they would be, but probably not.

CrusadeR2018 9y ago

Wow, who has time to read such tons of BS and subjective personal opinions, all vapor-ware and nothing for sure? And if companies are crossing lines, why doesn't law the almighty spread it's long arm and catch and punish the whole thugs? Why law can't or won't stop illegal business practices? And it it can't or won't; then who are the government and law enforcement bastards to force law on law-abiding average normal people? Why not everyone throw the law away, behave whatever they please and do whatever they want? Why not? If there are lo laws of the land then there are no lands. This is very clear to me. Someone started by disobeying laws and such dis-obedience got freedom to some. If governments are not fair, do not practice what they preach; then we are all free to do whatever we want, including burning down evil companies and shooting down every evil employee of such companies, including CEO and everyone, if law has not to be applied to them and if they are above the rules, so we are too, in fact, then everyone else is also to be above the rules. Wow, we are entering an utopia now!!

CrusadeR2018 9y ago

And I don't know, but we are for sure are cowards. We have lost which bought us the Independence and the Independence Day has merely been a calendar event for us. We have lost everything which defined a human, now we are all slave to cahoots and cartels, we have lost everything, everything now gone with the wind. Now there are no more great people, no more prophets arriving now (they have stopped it since 2018 years at least!!), now everyone is so enlightened that such middle-ages prophets have all suddenly lost all the steam to arrive in the world again!! Now only an alien invasion or Muslim migration (as it happening right now in Germany and Europe everywhere) can or at least has a potential to relight my, your and our fire!! Sorry for being an sub-dues humans, we are now going to sleep. Good Night,..people.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]