4 ms·

Isn't this trope getting a bit redundant? It's like Gmail ca 2012 all over again. Chrome is free software, you're not being forced to use it, there are alterna

Isn't this trope getting a bit redundant? It's like Gmail ca 2012 all over again. Chrome is free software, you're not being forced to use it, there are alternatives, the most relevant ones are even using the same engine. It's like everyone is trying to capture some unique visitors because they know it works: $service is spying on you.

robertAngst 7y ago
Is this a massive advertisement campaign by googles competitors? It seems these privacy concerns are particularly anti-google. Seems weird, given there arent many companies that made my life significantly better for 0$/yr.
- algesten 7y ago
  it's interesting how many people think paying with your privacy costs nothing.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    completely serious question, what does it cost me? It's not like my data is some zero sum thing that vanishes once someone else has it, and it's not like I have the ability to directly sell it to anyone else. How in material terms am I worse off by anyone tracking me. Isn't this all just entire ideological, I don't see what cost I incur if Google knows that I visited hackernews, listen to bowie on youtube and like podcasts
    - feanaro 7y ago
      Google and a few other gigantic corporations are clearly aiming for a much larger power grab in the future, with their own money, hardware, complete control of the software stack, the web, messaging, transport, etc. In this future, a corporation becomes indistinguishable from a government and this is the long term cost. It's hard to see if you're only paying attention to immediate cost on the scale of a year or few.
    - fromthestart 7y ago
      The cost is the risk of someone using your data against you in the future, against your will. For example, even seemingly benign page visits, like apolitical YouTube videos and shopping data can probably be combined with location history to infer political affiliation with good accuracy with some basic machine learning. That kind of data only needs to be collected once, and it's out there forever. Now imagine the wrong authoritarian party gains access to such data in 5 or 10 years, and now knows that you've spent your life going to church and watching gun videos, or that you visited a planned Parenthood clinic and listened to a strongly liberal artist.
  - lukevdp 7y ago
    Curious, what does it cost?
  - throw2016 7y ago
    Privacy in an individual context is irrelevant and only leads to folks glibly claiming they don't care about their privacy. Its like saying I personally doesn't care about the environment. That context and framing is wrong and misleading. Privacy has a value on a one to one basis. That's why no one is going to give you their phone, yet they will make dissonant statements online. And privacy has a far higher value on a societal basis for a democratic society. Surveillance capitalism is anti-democratic, hugely abusive and solely for the profit of a few. These are bad actors. That's why societal rule of law needs to kick in but as we know money and greed creates its own logic so that may take time. And till then there will be no shortage of apologists with a vested interest in surveillance trying to 'normalize' it.
the_duke 7y ago
The clue is in the title: It’s time to switch. > the most relevant ones are even using the same engine Firefox is very relevant.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ricardbejarano 7y ago
I was starting to think I was the only one against these claims. There's no one pushing Google down its users' throats. Yet people ask Google to behave like they want. Well, surprise! Google is a private entity and they'll do whatever they want. If you don't like it, leave. I left a long time ago but I believe these claims are unfair to Google. We are being bombarded with "Google's x product is a monopoly". No they are not. There are tons of alternatives to anyone of Google's services. The thing is, they do it better than their alternatives. Free market, my friend. If x alternative to a Google's service gets better, people will gravitate towards it. But don't ask people to drop the better product in order to give (undeserved) attention to the not-so-great one. Earn it! People also complain about Google making their services' sites suck on other browsers. Well, their site, their rules. Not so long ago all online services had dedicated clients instead of web apps. Those apps weren't called "monopolies", yet there was no alternative client. Because the root of the monopoly argument lies in the "service", if there are no alternatives to the "service", now we are talking, but there's no monopoly in the "client". If you don't like the "client", drop the service.
- feanaro 7y ago
  Unfortunately, your narrative fails due to the existence of standards and governments. Having a large enough market share and capital allows you to manipulate both to your advantage.
feanaro 7y ago
Yes, you're not forced to use it so well-meaning advice to stop using it is welcome. Also, Google isn't exactly a randomly sampled spying $service. It is probably one of top two offenders in this regard.
hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
> Chrome is free software, Chrome might be provided without cost but it is certainly not free software. It is proprietary.
- ZuLuuuuuu 7y ago
  The word "free" has two meanings, he/she obviously meant it free as in free beer.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    "Free software" has a very distinct meaning.
vetinari 7y ago
> Chrome is free software When did that happen? Chromium is free software. Chrome isn't, by any stretch of imagination.

robertAngst 7y ago

Is this a massive advertisement campaign by googles competitors? It seems these privacy concerns are particularly anti-google. Seems weird, given there arent many companies that made my life significantly better for 0$/yr.

algesten 7y ago
it's interesting how many people think paying with your privacy costs nothing.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  completely serious question, what does it cost me? It's not like my data is some zero sum thing that vanishes once someone else has it, and it's not like I have the ability to directly sell it to anyone else. How in material terms am I worse off by anyone tracking me. Isn't this all just entire ideological, I don't see what cost I incur if Google knows that I visited hackernews, listen to bowie on youtube and like podcasts
  - feanaro 7y ago
    Google and a few other gigantic corporations are clearly aiming for a much larger power grab in the future, with their own money, hardware, complete control of the software stack, the web, messaging, transport, etc. In this future, a corporation becomes indistinguishable from a government and this is the long term cost. It's hard to see if you're only paying attention to immediate cost on the scale of a year or few.
  - fromthestart 7y ago
    The cost is the risk of someone using your data against you in the future, against your will. For example, even seemingly benign page visits, like apolitical YouTube videos and shopping data can probably be combined with location history to infer political affiliation with good accuracy with some basic machine learning. That kind of data only needs to be collected once, and it's out there forever. Now imagine the wrong authoritarian party gains access to such data in 5 or 10 years, and now knows that you've spent your life going to church and watching gun videos, or that you visited a planned Parenthood clinic and listened to a strongly liberal artist.
- lukevdp 7y ago
  Curious, what does it cost?
- throw2016 7y ago
  Privacy in an individual context is irrelevant and only leads to folks glibly claiming they don't care about their privacy. Its like saying I personally doesn't care about the environment. That context and framing is wrong and misleading. Privacy has a value on a one to one basis. That's why no one is going to give you their phone, yet they will make dissonant statements online. And privacy has a far higher value on a societal basis for a democratic society. Surveillance capitalism is anti-democratic, hugely abusive and solely for the profit of a few. These are bad actors. That's why societal rule of law needs to kick in but as we know money and greed creates its own logic so that may take time. And till then there will be no shortage of apologists with a vested interest in surveillance trying to 'normalize' it.

the_duke 7y ago

The clue is in the title: It’s time to switch. > the most relevant ones are even using the same engine Firefox is very relevant.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ricardbejarano 7y ago

I was starting to think I was the only one against these claims. There's no one pushing Google down its users' throats. Yet people ask Google to behave like they want. Well, surprise! Google is a private entity and they'll do whatever they want. If you don't like it, leave. I left a long time ago but I believe these claims are unfair to Google. We are being bombarded with "Google's x product is a monopoly". No they are not. There are tons of alternatives to anyone of Google's services. The thing is, they do it better than their alternatives. Free market, my friend. If x alternative to a Google's service gets better, people will gravitate towards it. But don't ask people to drop the better product in order to give (undeserved) attention to the not-so-great one. Earn it! People also complain about Google making their services' sites suck on other browsers. Well, their site, their rules. Not so long ago all online services had dedicated clients instead of web apps. Those apps weren't called "monopolies", yet there was no alternative client. Because the root of the monopoly argument lies in the "service", if there are no alternatives to the "service", now we are talking, but there's no monopoly in the "client". If you don't like the "client", drop the service.

feanaro 7y ago
Unfortunately, your narrative fails due to the existence of standards and governments. Having a large enough market share and capital allows you to manipulate both to your advantage.

feanaro 7y ago

Yes, you're not forced to use it so well-meaning advice to stop using it is welcome. Also, Google isn't exactly a randomly sampled spying $service. It is probably one of top two offenders in this regard.

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago

> Chrome is free software, Chrome might be provided without cost but it is certainly not free software. It is proprietary.

ZuLuuuuuu 7y ago
The word "free" has two meanings, he/she obviously meant it free as in free beer.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  "Free software" has a very distinct meaning.

vetinari 7y ago

> Chrome is free software When did that happen? Chromium is free software. Chrome isn't, by any stretch of imagination.