3 ms·

This assumes that Google can be trusted with my data and other apps can't, and that I'm ok with Google assessing the safety of other apps. It's something that i

by rakoo 2y ago

This assumes that Google can be trusted with my data and other apps can't, and that I'm ok with Google assessing the safety of other apps. It's something that is automatic, and right now it needs to be explained. Yes, assessing the trustability of apps is important. No, I don't trust Google to do it properly. Maybe I didn't choose Google because I find them the best, but because I have to (because Google, surprise surprise, forces itself down the throat of everyone, so the people I want to collaborate with use it). Did my apps certify Google as a trustable provider ?

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
If you don't trust Google, why are you using Drive in the first place?
- rakoo 2y ago
  Quoting the message you replied to: > the people I want to collaborate with use it If I were an independent individual who didn't need any others, then it might be a decision I can make. That's the neo-liberal lie you are driven to believe. But we're always part of a society and can't exist without society. Some of the information I want to read has been elaborated and written for years in Google Drive. Some of the people who want to share stuff with me will only use Google Drive. Of course I do all my best to migrate them away, but it only works that much.
theamk 2y ago
That makes no sense - if you don't trust Google Drive, don't use it. Google is not "forcing itself down the throat" with Google Drive, and even my Android phone comes with 3 cloud providers. And yes, your apps certified Google as a trustable provider when they added support for it. Such support is not automatic, it requires non-trivial effort, and presumable no one would do it for services they do not trust.
- rakoo 2y ago
  > And yes, your apps certified Google as a trustable provider when they added support for it. Such support is not automatic, it requires non-trivial effort Are you talking about the technical support (ie implementing APIs) or the bureaucratic support (ie going through Google's process) ? Because the first one is a result of Google going its own way with its own protocol, and the second is entirely a decision of Google. > and presumable no one would do it for services they do not trust. No, they would not do it for a service that is vital for the sustainability of their app. When Google is so hegemonic it's sometimes impossible to avoid, app developers must consider whether Google's ways are worth implementing not just based on Google but on the users' willing to make do with an app that doesn't work with Google. Not being compatible with Google is more often than not seen as a problem with the app, not with Google.

by rakoo 2y ago

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

If you don't trust Google, why are you using Drive in the first place?

rakoo 2y ago
Quoting the message you replied to: > the people I want to collaborate with use it If I were an independent individual who didn't need any others, then it might be a decision I can make. That's the neo-liberal lie you are driven to believe. But we're always part of a society and can't exist without society. Some of the information I want to read has been elaborated and written for years in Google Drive. Some of the people who want to share stuff with me will only use Google Drive. Of course I do all my best to migrate them away, but it only works that much.

theamk 2y ago

That makes no sense - if you don't trust Google Drive, don't use it. Google is not "forcing itself down the throat" with Google Drive, and even my Android phone comes with 3 cloud providers. And yes, your apps certified Google as a trustable provider when they added support for it. Such support is not automatic, it requires non-trivial effort, and presumable no one would do it for services they do not trust.

rakoo 2y ago
> And yes, your apps certified Google as a trustable provider when they added support for it. Such support is not automatic, it requires non-trivial effort Are you talking about the technical support (ie implementing APIs) or the bureaucratic support (ie going through Google's process) ? Because the first one is a result of Google going its own way with its own protocol, and the second is entirely a decision of Google. > and presumable no one would do it for services they do not trust. No, they would not do it for a service that is vital for the sustainability of their app. When Google is so hegemonic it's sometimes impossible to avoid, app developers must consider whether Google's ways are worth implementing not just based on Google but on the users' willing to make do with an app that doesn't work with Google. Not being compatible with Google is more often than not seen as a problem with the app, not with Google.