5 ms·

They already have my email receipts, what's the difference? I use venmo - they have it too. My credit card companies are private companies. Where's the outrag

by beaner 8y ago

They already have my email receipts, what's the difference? I use venmo - they have it too. My credit card companies are private companies. Where's the outrage regarding them? Google does not reveal my identity to partners; What you're spreading is fake news.

ve55 8y ago
>Google does not reveal my identity to partners; What you're spreading is fake news. We know for a fact data was at least shared with the NSA in the past. We also know Google complies with legal requests, could have a partial data breach in the future, could change terms or undergo some type of merger or acquisition which would include your data, etc. The point here is that it is completely outside of your control. If you want to give all of the control in your life to Google because they have treated you (mostly) well (so far), that's up to you. But as for myself and others, we will refrain because we can think up many reasons why it might not be a smart choice in the long run.
- beaner 8y ago
  Yeah, but now you're changing the argument from selling data for profit to simply complying with the law. If Google complying with the law is something someone feels at-risk for, then I understand not choosing to use them. But that's really a lesson that goes for any centralized service.
  - ve55 8y ago
    I haven't claimed that Google sells your data for a profit. Other centralized services carry risks as well, but some of them have profit models that are focused on something other than scooping up every bit of data possible, with some even having profit models specifically focused on the opposite.
colanderman 8y ago
> What you're spreading is fake news. I suggest avoiding this phrase if you are trying to have a serious debate. It's overused to the point of obnoxiousness, and doesn't even apply here. (The person you replied to posed a question. Questions are not "news", nor can be described as "fake".)
- beaner 8y ago
  The question was based on an assumption that the data is shared. It was that assumption that I was calling out, an assumption that is very much in the news, and which is untrue, but also known to be untrue by some and still promoted, making it fake.

by beaner 8y ago

ve55 8y ago

>Google does not reveal my identity to partners; What you're spreading is fake news. We know for a fact data was at least shared with the NSA in the past. We also know Google complies with legal requests, could have a partial data breach in the future, could change terms or undergo some type of merger or acquisition which would include your data, etc. The point here is that it is completely outside of your control. If you want to give all of the control in your life to Google because they have treated you (mostly) well (so far), that's up to you. But as for myself and others, we will refrain because we can think up many reasons why it might not be a smart choice in the long run.

beaner 8y ago
Yeah, but now you're changing the argument from selling data for profit to simply complying with the law. If Google complying with the law is something someone feels at-risk for, then I understand not choosing to use them. But that's really a lesson that goes for any centralized service.
- ve55 8y ago
  I haven't claimed that Google sells your data for a profit. Other centralized services carry risks as well, but some of them have profit models that are focused on something other than scooping up every bit of data possible, with some even having profit models specifically focused on the opposite.

colanderman 8y ago

> What you're spreading is fake news. I suggest avoiding this phrase if you are trying to have a serious debate. It's overused to the point of obnoxiousness, and doesn't even apply here. (The person you replied to posed a question. Questions are not "news", nor can be described as "fake".)

beaner 8y ago
The question was based on an assumption that the data is shared. It was that assumption that I was calling out, an assumption that is very much in the news, and which is untrue, but also known to be untrue by some and still promoted, making it fake.