5 ms·

I don't think it's a good idea to give any company a monopoly on your data even if you trust them.

AnonC 6y ago
Why would it be a monopoly? If you use something that uses open standards and provides ways to export or backup your data, you can move anytime. Taken a little deeper, your statement would imply that people should build and maintain their own data centers and host all services by themselves (this argument could be stretched even further).
- gpanders 6y ago
  > Taken a little deeper, your statement would imply that people should build and maintain their own data centers and host all services by themselves One doesn't need a data center to host these kinds of services. Nextcloud on a Raspberry Pi works just fine.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Taken a little deeper, your statement would imply that people should build and maintain their own data centers and host all services by themselves (this argument could be stretched even further). Yes, yes they should; it's called a personal computer; IBM used to sell pre-built ones.
- metrokoi 6y ago
  A monopoly on the services you use, not a monopoly as in they have total control over your data and you cannot export your data. If all you use is Mozilla services, as the original commenter would like, that is the very definition of a monopoly over your personal software usage. I did not imply anything of the sort, and I am astonished and confused as to why you would think that. How in the world does mentioning that it's not a good idea to give a company a monopoly over your personal usage lead to people should build their own personal data services? Obviously the real implication is that it's better to use multiple different providers of software services instead of one, or use as many different open source software as possible. The benefits being if or when a company decides to use your data for nefarious purposes they can only use a portion instead of all of your data. Likewise a security breach to one of those companies would only expose a portion as well.

Why would it be a monopoly? If you use something that uses open standards and provides ways to export or backup your data, you can move anytime. Taken a little deeper, your statement would imply that people should build and maintain their own data centers and host all services by themselves (this argument could be stretched even further).

gpanders 6y ago
> Taken a little deeper, your statement would imply that people should build and maintain their own data centers and host all services by themselves One doesn't need a data center to host these kinds of services. Nextcloud on a Raspberry Pi works just fine.
a1369209993 6y ago
> Taken a little deeper, your statement would imply that people should build and maintain their own data centers and host all services by themselves (this argument could be stretched even further). Yes, yes they should; it's called a personal computer; IBM used to sell pre-built ones.
metrokoi 6y ago
A monopoly on the services you use, not a monopoly as in they have total control over your data and you cannot export your data. If all you use is Mozilla services, as the original commenter would like, that is the very definition of a monopoly over your personal software usage. I did not imply anything of the sort, and I am astonished and confused as to why you would think that. How in the world does mentioning that it's not a good idea to give a company a monopoly over your personal usage lead to people should build their own personal data services? Obviously the real implication is that it's better to use multiple different providers of software services instead of one, or use as many different open source software as possible. The benefits being if or when a company decides to use your data for nefarious purposes they can only use a portion instead of all of your data. Likewise a security breach to one of those companies would only expose a portion as well.