2 ms·
That’s a rather simplistic take; a company that makes money by surveilling you as you use their products also must care about the quality of their products. If
by justusthane 4y ago
That’s a rather simplistic take; a company that makes money by surveilling you as you use their products also must care about the quality of their products. If their products suck, fewer people will use them = fewer people to surveil = less money! So not all changes are necessarily directly in the service of surveillance.
Also, I don’t think your reply to the above comment was entirely fair; they didn’t say anything about adding DNS records, and also mentioned several other potential benefits of not using subdomains.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoAll changes are in the service of surveillance. If making the honey pot sweeter works then they’ll do it. If making it more pervasive and intrusive while not offending anyone away they will do it. They will do nothing that hurts the mission to mine and sell advertisements, and all actions will lead to that. I know you mentioned other things but they’re all sort of in the same bucket of “not that hard once done” and “google can surely do that without blinking an eye”. I would posit the move away from a subdomain to a root domain is hard and complex and benefits end users not one bit. Perhaps the end state is easier on the margins, but again, I doubt given it’s been that way for so long it’s effectively any easier for engineers or operators at google in any way what so ever. Well, other than those responsible for surveilling all the things.