4 ms·

But they did need to do this, because it's great for them. Now there's two new apologies that can be breathlessly recited to excuse surveillance capitalism: *

by blub 8y ago

But they did need to do this, because it's great for them. Now there's two new apologies that can be breathlessly recited to excuse surveillance capitalism: * Google are brave for admitting they have your data! * Sure it's bad they have so much data, but they can be so much more helpful. Your reply's funny in a way, because if you jump from the beginning to the end it reads like "I get it: our online privacy is important" and then you give N reasons why it's not. And why Google's awesome for the internet (with capital I). Google at the end of the day is gobbling up information on billions of people from mobile phones, browsers, e-mail, ads, their search engine, their web analytics, their smart home devices and classroom laptops, Google voice service, captchas and almost anything one can think of. The fact that so much information exists in one place is dangerous in itself, they don't have to actually do anything evil. But they do anyway: they lock people out of their online lives, out victims to their stalkers, manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns, subvert or take over web standards, conspire to keep employee salaries low, sometimes serve malware through their ads, crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search, illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish and so on and so forth. They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean. The only good things they might have accidentally done for the internet were done to cement their power.

groovybits 8y ago
> if you jump from the beginning to the end it reads like "I get it: our online privacy is important" and then you give N reasons why it's not. I don't believe I was listing reasons why privacy is not important. I was simply noting a benefit that has come from Google's data collection: increased heuristics to combat malicious online activity. I believe this is a valid thing to consider. Regarding your list of evil deeds Google has done, lets refer to the definition of 'evil'. According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil), I believe we're focusing on the 'morally reprehensible' aspect of Google's actions. > they lock people out of their online lives I have seen reports of folks being locked out of their Google accounts because Google marked them as 'suspicious', which ultimately locks them out of logging into many other sites that they choose to link their Google account with. I agree that this is a valid concern. If this is an intentional act by Google, I would say this is morally reprehensible. Is it intentional though? And how quickly does Google typically fix these lock-outs? (I genuinely don't know). > out victims to their stalkers > manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns I'm not sure what context you're referring to with these two. > subvert or take over web standards Google has contributed to many web standards. However I have not seen them 'subvert' or 'take over' any existing standard. Is there an example of this? > conspire to keep employee salaries low I don't have salary reports for Google employees in front of me. I will not pretend to know the business logic for their payroll dept. I think the only folks who can accurately answer this are actual Google employees. > sometimes serve malware through their ads Through Google-owned ad companies? I have not seen an example of this. Malvertising is a real concern, but I have not seen this in the wild on a Google/Alphabet-owned website or on a site that serves ads directly from AdSense. > crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search Yes, I have seen what you are talking about here. Is this illegal though? And is it crushing competition? If I search for 'duckduckgo' or 'bing' on Google.com, I get results for those websites. > illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish Again, would love examples. AFAIK, phone manufacturers are free to alter AOSP however they wish. Again, what is the illegal part? > They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean. Guilty of what, and are those things morally reprehensible? -- To make my point clear, I completely agree that Google has a lot of power in their data collection, and it is something we should be concerned about. The reason why I'm replying is because I am genuinely curious about a lot of these points. Lets not romanticize the problem. Provide hard facts. That is the only way things change.

by blub 8y ago

groovybits 8y ago

> if you jump from the beginning to the end it reads like "I get it: our online privacy is important" and then you give N reasons why it's not. I don't believe I was listing reasons why privacy is not important. I was simply noting a benefit that has come from Google's data collection: increased heuristics to combat malicious online activity. I believe this is a valid thing to consider. Regarding your list of evil deeds Google has done, lets refer to the definition of 'evil'. According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil), I believe we're focusing on the 'morally reprehensible' aspect of Google's actions. > they lock people out of their online lives I have seen reports of folks being locked out of their Google accounts because Google marked them as 'suspicious', which ultimately locks them out of logging into many other sites that they choose to link their Google account with. I agree that this is a valid concern. If this is an intentional act by Google, I would say this is morally reprehensible. Is it intentional though? And how quickly does Google typically fix these lock-outs? (I genuinely don't know). > out victims to their stalkers > manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns I'm not sure what context you're referring to with these two. > subvert or take over web standards Google has contributed to many web standards. However I have not seen them 'subvert' or 'take over' any existing standard. Is there an example of this? > conspire to keep employee salaries low I don't have salary reports for Google employees in front of me. I will not pretend to know the business logic for their payroll dept. I think the only folks who can accurately answer this are actual Google employees. > sometimes serve malware through their ads Through Google-owned ad companies? I have not seen an example of this. Malvertising is a real concern, but I have not seen this in the wild on a Google/Alphabet-owned website or on a site that serves ads directly from AdSense. > crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search Yes, I have seen what you are talking about here. Is this illegal though? And is it crushing competition? If I search for 'duckduckgo' or 'bing' on Google.com, I get results for those websites. > illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish Again, would love examples. AFAIK, phone manufacturers are free to alter AOSP however they wish. Again, what is the illegal part? > They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean. Guilty of what, and are those things morally reprehensible? -- To make my point clear, I completely agree that Google has a lot of power in their data collection, and it is something we should be concerned about. The reason why I'm replying is because I am genuinely curious about a lot of these points. Lets not romanticize the problem. Provide hard facts. That is the only way things change.