5 ms·

Losing Chrome doesn't necessarily stop you being tracked. If you make a vacuum it will be filled by someone else. I am not suggesting apathy but opting out just

Losing Chrome doesn't necessarily stop you being tracked. If you make a vacuum it will be filled by someone else. I am not suggesting apathy but opting out just makes holes for someone else to fill. And as we have seen in the past competition is great but it quickly gets amalgamated behind the scenes, just look at the alcohol industry. All those brands look like healthy competition, but it's largely one parent company. You can imagine that a young Instagram or What's App could have been on the safe list of alternate social platforms, but Facebook bought them both. Firefox isn't impervious to a change of management and ownership 5-10 years down the line. So what you are left with is using esoteric applications and social spaces that no one really cares about. That's analogous to living off the grid. It just isn't really suitable to the majority of people and as such it isn't a solution at all. The problem isn't Chrome or Google per se, it's technology. We should be pressuring the big guns to conform to our needs, not opting out and abandoning the people who benefit from large social platforms and convenient, well supported applications.

nine_k 7y ago
The logic is simpler. The makers of Firefox (and apparently Safari) do have an incentive to keep your privacy. The makers of Chrome have an incentive to keep you tracked. So it's not the technology, it's business models. (Basically it's the rude awakening to TANSTAAFL.)
- jordanpg 7y ago
  Another perspective: browsers will be like the BIOSes of the future, a sort of invisible thing in the background that no one ever thinks about, but just works perfectly all the time. I take it as self-evident that the form that this takes will be the simplest, most generic one, and by definition will not have any associated "business goals." This era of business models wrapped up with browser design is ephemeral; certainly browsers (in some form) will outlast Google's business model. It's easy to forget that all of this tech is still in its infancy, and the various players are fighting for market share and to make money. It is something out of a comedic dystopian novel to imagine that the browsers of the future will be tightly coupled with something so petty and vapid as advertisements.
- dhimes 7y ago
  TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, for any other folks out there like me who are curious but out of the loop.
- monkeynotes 7y ago
  What I am hearing is it's not right/fair/moral for businesses to compete with personal data as their primary asset. The proposed solution is for a small subsect of the technical elite to walk away. That really, really does not solve anything except an individual's problem. The solution is to put pressure on legislators to prevent companies like Google and Facebook trading your data to fund their business. This could result in Google/Facebook charging for their services, and maybe that's a really good thing. People would have to think about how much social media means to them and not ignore the hidden cost of their privacy.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    If you give your data to them, it's legitimate for them to use the data. You literally signed away your rights when accepted their ToS. I would go for clearer definitions of what personal data are, several most important kinds of it. Maybe a regulation should require that ToS clearly state how these data are going to be collected, accessed, and stored. Much like with medical or financial records. Then most users would just make more informed decisions, and that might also inform their online behavior and expectations. People are mostly not dumb, they just need clear information.
Pigo 7y ago
Try buying glasses that aren't made by Luxottica. I really wish we still cared about monopolization.
- davidgerard 7y ago
  Zenni.
  - Pigo 7y ago
    Thanks I will check them out, I'm almost always willing to support a good competitor to any monopolizing company. It's ironic, but even buying from Walmart is an option for sticking it to Luxopoly.
- driverdan 7y ago
  There are quite a few companies that aren't part of Luxottica. It just takes some research to find them. The two I've purchased from are American Optics / AO Eyeware and Tifosi. Their prices are better than Luxottica's brands and their quality is good.
paulryanrogers 7y ago
> The problem isn't Chrome or Google per se, it's technology. We should be pressuring the big guns to conform to our needs, not opting out... How do you propose to do that without boycotting? I'm all for regulating overly large corporations, but until that happens I can also vote with my feet.
- Frondo 7y ago
  Organize politically, at the state level, at the federal level, whatever you deem appropriate and achievable. Push for privacy laws, push for laws around data ownership. Develop a theory of "what should people own" and "what kind of behaviors should be prohibited by companies" and "what kind of disclosures should be required." Develop a message and start hammering your reps, and get like-minded techies and community members to do the same. Spend a lot of time doing boring and tedious things like building a coalition, and make this an issue that can be fought for and that people will spend time advocating for. California's privacy law didn't form in a vacuum, and neither did the EU's GDPR, and neither came into being because individuals were switching their personal browsing habits. None of that's a technological solution so it's the sort of thing we techies overlook, but that's how you do it without merely voting with your feet and doing individual actions that, on their own, have zero impact. When techies start organizing around issues like privacy, security disclosure, data ownership, and stuff like this, I think we'll stand to do some real good for the world.
  - stiray 7y ago
    Yes, I had the same thoughts, then I figured out that vast number of techies are earning from the fishy practices we should protest against. And barely anyone is prepared to protest against something that pays for his <insert your poison here> even if he knows it is wrong. We had a few people leaving google and facebook but vast majority stays or those companies would go out of job by only management left. And not only for tech, this is the same on all levels of life. Just check the threads here when GDPR was introduced, oh all the rage. Don't blame the companies, politics,... They are the best what society can offer. If world is filled with corrupt, egoistic, narcissistic, greedy (etc.) people, the companies that are made by exactly the same people, are also corrupt, greedy (,...). Same goes for politics. And everything else. The society needs to change. But. There is barely anyone left to push the change. There is barely anyone who understands that there is a need for change. < scratching head under thousands of layers of tinfoil hats various people, who didn't listen, put there in last 20 years >

nine_k 7y ago

The logic is simpler. The makers of Firefox (and apparently Safari) do have an incentive to keep your privacy. The makers of Chrome have an incentive to keep you tracked. So it's not the technology, it's business models. (Basically it's the rude awakening to TANSTAAFL.)

jordanpg 7y ago
Another perspective: browsers will be like the BIOSes of the future, a sort of invisible thing in the background that no one ever thinks about, but just works perfectly all the time. I take it as self-evident that the form that this takes will be the simplest, most generic one, and by definition will not have any associated "business goals." This era of business models wrapped up with browser design is ephemeral; certainly browsers (in some form) will outlast Google's business model. It's easy to forget that all of this tech is still in its infancy, and the various players are fighting for market share and to make money. It is something out of a comedic dystopian novel to imagine that the browsers of the future will be tightly coupled with something so petty and vapid as advertisements.
dhimes 7y ago
TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, for any other folks out there like me who are curious but out of the loop.
monkeynotes 7y ago
What I am hearing is it's not right/fair/moral for businesses to compete with personal data as their primary asset. The proposed solution is for a small subsect of the technical elite to walk away. That really, really does not solve anything except an individual's problem. The solution is to put pressure on legislators to prevent companies like Google and Facebook trading your data to fund their business. This could result in Google/Facebook charging for their services, and maybe that's a really good thing. People would have to think about how much social media means to them and not ignore the hidden cost of their privacy.
- nine_k 7y ago
  If you give your data to them, it's legitimate for them to use the data. You literally signed away your rights when accepted their ToS. I would go for clearer definitions of what personal data are, several most important kinds of it. Maybe a regulation should require that ToS clearly state how these data are going to be collected, accessed, and stored. Much like with medical or financial records. Then most users would just make more informed decisions, and that might also inform their online behavior and expectations. People are mostly not dumb, they just need clear information.

Pigo 7y ago

Try buying glasses that aren't made by Luxottica. I really wish we still cared about monopolization.

davidgerard 7y ago
Zenni.
- Pigo 7y ago
  Thanks I will check them out, I'm almost always willing to support a good competitor to any monopolizing company. It's ironic, but even buying from Walmart is an option for sticking it to Luxopoly.
driverdan 7y ago
There are quite a few companies that aren't part of Luxottica. It just takes some research to find them. The two I've purchased from are American Optics / AO Eyeware and Tifosi. Their prices are better than Luxottica's brands and their quality is good.

paulryanrogers 7y ago

> The problem isn't Chrome or Google per se, it's technology. We should be pressuring the big guns to conform to our needs, not opting out... How do you propose to do that without boycotting? I'm all for regulating overly large corporations, but until that happens I can also vote with my feet.

Frondo 7y ago
Organize politically, at the state level, at the federal level, whatever you deem appropriate and achievable. Push for privacy laws, push for laws around data ownership. Develop a theory of "what should people own" and "what kind of behaviors should be prohibited by companies" and "what kind of disclosures should be required." Develop a message and start hammering your reps, and get like-minded techies and community members to do the same. Spend a lot of time doing boring and tedious things like building a coalition, and make this an issue that can be fought for and that people will spend time advocating for. California's privacy law didn't form in a vacuum, and neither did the EU's GDPR, and neither came into being because individuals were switching their personal browsing habits. None of that's a technological solution so it's the sort of thing we techies overlook, but that's how you do it without merely voting with your feet and doing individual actions that, on their own, have zero impact. When techies start organizing around issues like privacy, security disclosure, data ownership, and stuff like this, I think we'll stand to do some real good for the world.
- stiray 7y ago
  Yes, I had the same thoughts, then I figured out that vast number of techies are earning from the fishy practices we should protest against. And barely anyone is prepared to protest against something that pays for his <insert your poison here> even if he knows it is wrong. We had a few people leaving google and facebook but vast majority stays or those companies would go out of job by only management left. And not only for tech, this is the same on all levels of life. Just check the threads here when GDPR was introduced, oh all the rage. Don't blame the companies, politics,... They are the best what society can offer. If world is filled with corrupt, egoistic, narcissistic, greedy (etc.) people, the companies that are made by exactly the same people, are also corrupt, greedy (,...). Same goes for politics. And everything else. The society needs to change. But. There is barely anyone left to push the change. There is barely anyone who understands that there is a need for change. < scratching head under thousands of layers of tinfoil hats various people, who didn't listen, put there in last 20 years >