
Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google? - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/blog/is-facebook-really-scarier-than-google
======
drawkbox
Your ISP tracking your every move is scarier than all of them after the ISP
privacy bill passed.

At least Facebook and Google give you something for it and you can route
around them if you desire. No routing around ISPs unless you use a VPN but
even then they are blocking those.

Broadband/cable/telcos capture everything you do and can now sell that
information and do[1]. That bill was the pre-cursor to removing net neutrality
by taking privacy and policy from the FCC to the FTC.

Part of Jeff Flakes argument for getting rid of the privacy protections were
so that ISPs can compete with Facebook and Google and sell your data/offer ads
to you. Yet Facebook and Google at least built products you wanted that you
willingly gave up privacy to use and at least got something for it [2][3].

ISPs you have to pay to use and they still take your data as if you are the
product. ISPs could have built products people wanted to get that data but
they instead bribed 'representatives' to get it via legislation with their
local monopolies. Noone wanted this bill but ISPs.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-
you...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-
could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections)

[2] [https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-
ed-f...](https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-for-the-
wall-street-journal)

[3]
[https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/flake-i...](https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/flake-
introduces-resolution-to-protect-consumers-from-overreaching-internet-
regulation)

~~~
peterwwillis
Uh, Google and Mozilla and a handful of organizations are converting all web
traffic to HTTPS through subtle manipulation of standards and user interface.
They even proxy mobile traffic from their search engine. ISPs can't even see
what IP you're visiting because it's all fronted by CloudFlare. Even your DNS
is being hidden by an HTTPS tunnel in the browser.

Your ISP soon won't be able to see anything you do online. But Google will see
it all.

~~~
lallysingh
There's still SNI in TLS. Hopefully that changes in 1.3, but I don't know how
prevalent that is yet.

~~~
exikyut
Wait. Wait a minute.

I was planning literally this month to figure out how to implement domain
traffic analytics on my LAN by using SNI via libpcap or similar (something
tiny).

Will I have to configure a root cert and build a full DPI proxy to make this
futureproof? >_<

~~~
lallysingh
It'll be coming, and yes you will. On the bright side, nobody else without a
root cert on your box can do it.

~~~
exikyut
Argh. But thanks for the honest headsup.

Time to go learn how to do DPI...

------
Malarkey73
I know Google is profiling me and harvesting my data. But it's not using me to
harvest my friends information.

I know Google is targeting ads at me - and they maybe AB tested. But those ads
are from real companies or organisations - they aren't fake bots or astroturf
groups algorithmically designed to tell me what I want to hear.

I'm sceptically watchful of Google, I feel I have a social contract with them
where they use me and I use them. I think Facebook has way overstepped that
mark.

~~~
jonathanyc
I sure as hell don't think my Grandma or Dad would have realized that Google's
dark pattern[1] "opt-out" dialogs asking if they want to "make Android better"
actually were asking for permission to send their location on a minute-by-
minute basis to Google. How do you think Google populates their "Popular
Times" card on search results?[2] Do you believe that even a simple majority
of people going to a hospital, say, for some embarassing infection or a psych
eval realize that the fact that they are there is going to be stored
permanently on a Google server?

Google for me is the company that epitomizes the idea of false consent
justifying near-unlimited data collection and permanent retention. If the man
on the street is not aware of what he's agreeing to when he buys an Android
phone in a meaningful sense, it is not consent in any meaningful sense.

We as people in tech might be aware. We might even be fashionably cynical in
trying to rationalize our awareness of Google's tricks as a "social contract."
But with knowledge comes responsibility.

[1]: [https://darkpatterns.org/](https://darkpatterns.org/) [2]: Seems to
appear/not appear based on opaque conditions.

~~~
MarkMc
I can't see anything wrong with the opt-out screen during Android setup [1]

The option you refer to says, "Help improve your Android experience by
automatically sending diagnostic and usage data to Google."

There is a separate option which says in part, "Anonymous location data will
be sent to Google, even when no apps are running".

That seems pretty clear to me - I can't see any dark pattern.

[1]
[https://fscl01.fonpit.de/userfiles/6473479/image/Nexus_5_mar...](https://fscl01.fonpit.de/userfiles/6473479/image/Nexus_5_marshmallow/androidpit-
setup-screen-5-w782.jpeg)

~~~
pelario
C'mon... Google maps will ask me turn my GPS every damn time I use it; no way
"to remember this choice", but if I activated it, it is super happy to
remember it.

Still don't see anything wrong?

------
Ivoirians
Disclaimer: I work for Google and these views are only my opinion, etc.

From my perspective, Google's goals are aligned with improving the world by
offering information services. Search, Gmail, Maps, Translate, basically all
of the Other Bets, etc.--it's easy to imagine that the people behind them are
more concerned with impact on the world than on generating profit or
consolidating Google's power.

To me, Facebook has no such world-improving aspirations. The extent to which
I'm aware of Facebook's attempt to improve the world was the initiative to
bring free internet to India, which was perceived as a play to lock more
people into Facebook. Plus, I keep seeing studies of how increased Facebook
usage correlates negatively with peoples' moods, so Zuckerberg's evident goal
of "get everyone on Earth on Facebook" feels gross.

Things obviously aren't just this black and white, and both companies collect
user data in order to generate buckets of advertising wealth (which, if you
find disagreeable, probably biases you against both companies), but from a
personal perspective, I'm quite happy working for Google while I don't think
you could pay me enough to work for Facebook.

~~~
pnloyd
A lot of people seem to default to a really cynical view of tech businesses. I
share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like
Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life
easier. This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many people hold is
getting kinda old.

Giving them your data is the price you pay for their service. If this doesn't
seem fair to you then find an alternative. Enough of this scary business.

Maybe with the Equifax and Cambridge analytica incidents the broader public
will start thinking about privacy more seriously. And in turn companies may
start pushing privacy assurances as selling points. (Just reaching for a bit
of optimism in these unnerving circumstances, I don't like it either)

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like
Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life
easier.

I've never understood how people can have such a religious-like faith in a
corporation they have never seen the inside of and in which they know not a
single person who works there. Gullibility perhaps?

>This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many people hold is getting
kinda old.

Do you care at all about security? Because that is the fundamental assumption
behind taking any security precaution whatsoever in life, whether it's putting
a lock on your door or not trusting a faceless corporation with billions of
the most detailed psychological profiles in history.

~~~
kimdcmason
.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
How is it a strawman?

------
sykh
What is scary is the unregulated way in which massive amounts of data can be
used to sway public opinion so easily. What is even scarier than this is the
way in which those in power can use massive amounts of data to sway public
opinion without oversight. The very notion of a republican form of government
may end up needing to be reanalyzed.

Forget concentrating on Google or Facebook. There is a larger concern. If
multi-national company A collects massive amounts of data and sells it to
company B to use to influence elections in country C then in what way are C's
people in control of their government? Especially if A and B are based in
another country.

~~~
joe_the_user
The framing of the situation is kind of twisted imo.

If we talking about politics, it seems entirely reasonable that a politician
would want know what their constituents were thinking about, would tell their
constituents what the constituents wanted to here and go to Washington and do
what they promised. That's democracy - obviously, this democracy isn't in very
good shape. But it's hard claim to that having a very fined-grained
understanding of a constituency's wants is the thing that is destroying
American democracy. I would lie it's more simply "lies and demagoguery". Now,
it seems like Trump undoubtedly used data to fine-tune his demagoguery but I
think we have to look elsewhere that data-access to explain the problem. Or -
the problem with American democracy isn't groups have fragmented to many, many
sub-constituencies but that significant portion of these have palpably
irrational views (anti-vaxers, pizza-gate, etc).

That's problem for our democratic system. That degredation of education might
be to blame. The destruction of the safety net might be to blame. Or the
willingness of mainstream media to engage in propagandistic approaches equally
as manipulative as the extreme right might be to blame - and that bring the
point that complaints about Cambridge Analytica in a broader context seem
entirely in this propagandistic stream, shifting the focus of attention and
packaging a vague threat rather than giving any coherent analysis.

~~~
sykh
I'd agree with the degradation of education system you brought up but even
well educated people are prone to being nudged. In the past there was a
diversity of competing news reporting. In the U.S. there has been massive
consolidation in ownership of media. The sources of information are becoming
fewer and the targeting of information is causing people to exist in news
bubbles.

As you point out we have anit-vaxers, pizza-gate, etc. and I think this is the
result of people existing in news bubbles. Curated content designed to
maximize dopamine, anger, fear, etc. This makes it easier to manipulate. Think
of all the people who got angry, fearful when Obama suggested having talks
with Kim Jon Un and who now are happy that Trump has suggested holding talks
with Kim Jon Un. People are prone to this sort of hypocrisy. They most likely
aren't even aware of it.

I'm not opposed to gaining a fine-grained understanding of constituent needs
as such. What I do oppose is a fine grained understanding of constituent needs
so that a message can be crafted to increase the chance that a policy gets
enacted when that policy has nothing to do with constituent needs. The
information does not appear to being used for the good but rather for the
enrichment, empowerment of well connected people.

The public at large is an informational battleground in which the victor
achieves power. We are pawns in a game and the purpose is not the public good.
This is dangerous if people don't realize this.

~~~
mudil
Actually, as an owner of the specialized website, I can tell you that blatant
invasion of privacy actually destroys publishers. Regional newspaper literary
competes with YouTube and apps for advertising dollars, and Google could care
less for existence of this regional newspaper, because it can show local ads
on the apps. See more what we wrote here:
[https://medgadget.com/google](https://medgadget.com/google)

------
product50
If FB goes down for one day it is a minor inconvenience.

If Google goes down for one day, I am literally at a standstill. No Maps, no
Search, no GMail, no YouTube, no Photos! I don't know how I will get through
the day without these services :(

As such, with Google, I am more than ok them using my data to target me ads
since it does feel a mutually beneficial relationship.

~~~
kuschku
> No Maps

Here Maps or OpenStreetMap

> No Search

I’ve switched to a mix of Qwant and DuckDuckGo, depending on question

> No GMail

I’ve been self-hosting all my mail for 4 years now, works fine thanks to
simple solutions such as this tutorial
[https://workaround.org/ispmail](https://workaround.org/ispmail)

> No YouTube

This is the largest issue, but most of what I consume is either music or
streams, and most of the streams are also on twitch, and the music is also
available for sale on CD, or on Spotify.

> No Photos

I use seafile with automated upload and a custom-built photos UI frontend to
provide a photo gallery for me, and to allow me to share photos. I use the
tensorflow pre-trained example model for object classification to tag the
images, it’s good enough.

For sharing other images, I’m building a custom imgur clone (GPLv3)
[https://git.kuschku.de/justJanne/imghost](https://git.kuschku.de/justJanne/imghost)
and [https://git.kuschku.de/justJanne/imghost-
frontend](https://git.kuschku.de/justJanne/imghost-frontend), example:
[https://i.k8r.eu/i/cXqmnQ](https://i.k8r.eu/i/cXqmnQ)

For most normal people, living without Google services may be complicated. But
this is HN, we’re basically all software engineers capable of building our own
solutions, and they don’t have to handle nearly as many edge cases. I don’t
need to translate my image host into 108 languages, just english is fine (even
if it’s not my native language). For people like us, it’s not that complicated
to free ourselves of Google, and, in the long term, even self-host everything.

~~~
langitbiru
Yes, I can live without Google Map, Google Search, GMail, Photos, but Youtube
is unavoidable. For me, Youtube is more than just music or cute videos. I
learn programming, mathematics, physics a lot from Youtube. :(

~~~
WovenTales
It's still not getting completely away from Google, and they could probably
still track you through IP, but I've been really happy with the NewPipe client
for Android; it's attempting to provide all the features of browsing without
falling back on any official API and certainly without needing an account.
There are a few features that aren't out yet (most notably comments,
notifications, and YT-user playlists, though it can play the latter if you get
the link through another browser) but it gives you an offline subscription
list and in my opinion is more comfortable to use than the official app.

------
tzakrajs
Forget scary. Let's talk about utility. Facebook gives you distraction but
Google gives you information (YouTube, Google Search, GMail, Maps, Voice,
Fiber, Project Fi, etc) and is more restrictive about how it lets partners use
its platform to interact with users.

~~~
libdjml
This 100%

Google build genuinely useful products, and use the knowledge it gains about
you to show (generally somewhat useful) ads, and generally stays out of your
way.

Facebook on the other hand desperately tries to manipulate you into consuming
as much time as possible on their platform at almost any cost, using lowest
common denominator tricks.

~~~
vasilipupkin
It's just kind of a false choice. I use FB to keep in touch and chat with
friends, find out about local events, follow various interesting people, etc.
google tried to do the same thing with Google Plus and failed. But I certainly
don't feel manipulated by FB, I feel they are providing me with a useful
service.

------
mattlondon
If you use FB, you have to be logged in and actively engaged by you providing
your identity to use it.

Google _can_ be used without logging in or tracking.

That is the critical difference for me - to use Facebook you have to actively
be part of the social graph and share your identity. Google wants you to sign
in, but you don't have to (apart from Gmail etc)

To block tracking from most people you can:

* Block third party cookies in your browser.

* Use DuckDuckGo.

* Block ads.

* Use a VPN (to get differing IP addresses).

This will neuter 99% of tracking approaches that rely on cookies, IP matching,
purchase history, or being logged in. For Google and others too. Some will use
more exotic approaches to tracking (e.g. canvas fingerprints) but there is a
browser extension arms race to handle that.

The first 3 of those things take 90 seconds to do once then forget about and
never deal with again. It's not hard. VPNs are more commitment and come with
their own problems, but add some extra obfuscation. If you don't want to use
android then obviously you can get another phone. Firefox is viable again
these days.

There are fewer and fewer excuses for this attitude - Google is not
inescapable IMO, but you cannot escape Facebook _if you want to use it_.

It just comes down to how much you care and how much you value their services
- you might need to ask yourself some hard questions about what you really
value and what you are prepared to go without before complaining about how
these companies are run in order to offer you free services.

(views are my own opinion)

edit: perhaps I wasn't clear: ad blockers and/or disallowing third party
cookies will prevent Facebook like buttons (or tracking pixels from other
parties) from tracking you as effectively, especially if you cycle your IP
addresses with a VPN. You just look like a totally different user each time.

~~~
m_ke
Facebook tracks everyone that comes across a page with a like button.

They also purchase data from 3rd parties
[https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/30/facebook-buys-data-on-
us...](https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/30/facebook-buys-data-on-users-
offline-habits-for-better-ads/)

------
WovenTales
I find it amazing that Chollet even tries to argue "There’s only one company
where the product is an opaque algorithmic newsfeed, that has been running
large-scale mood/opinion manipulation experiments..." when Google's ranking
algorithm is so infamously fickle, and especially when its per-user bubbling
is an open secret and even obliquely touted as a feature.

------
aylmao
Google has a profile of my voice solid enough that they're comfortable making
it an authentication option in Android. They have microphones in millions of
homes and millions more on people's pockets, which are by the way also
tracking live location and a myriad of other data.

Yikes.

------
kaonashi
Not at all; Google is every bit as scary. Together the two companies have
sucked all the profit out of publishing.

------
thriftwy
You can also dump it and not miss a beat. Much harder to do with Google.
Facebook is thoroughly non-essential.

~~~
jonathanyc
Tell that to people with Android phones. Google Play Services is an opaque
blob that cannot be uninstalled and is necessary for nearly all Android apps.
And it is constantly uploading your location minute-by-minute to Google for
use in things like their "Popular Times" card on search results and who knows
what else.

~~~
bitmapbrother
When you set up an Android phone you have the option of not using Google
Services. Secondly, you can disable Google Play Services anytime you want. You
can also turn off location history and tracking anytime you want so I'm not
sure where you get the idea that none of these services or apps can be turned
off or disabled.

~~~
jonathanyc
I am not sure what comment you think you are replying to. Google Play Services
cannot be uninstalled on a stock Android phone, like I said, only disabled;
and disabling it means the vast majority of Android apps won’t work, like I
said. These are facts that anyone can verify for themselves; you merely
claiming otherwise doesn’t change this.

You also seem to be confusing Google’s various services with Google Play
Services specifically.

~~~
joshuamorton
You can, however, disable the location tracking across your device pretty
easily, or even just disable location history if you want other tools to be
able to use your location.

Yes, disabling core features of your device results in a worse user
experience, this should not come as a surprise.

~~~
CaptSpify
The point is that there is no reason those features need to be dependent on
Google Play Services in the first place

~~~
joshuamorton
I believe there are power and compute related reasons that you actually do
need there to be a central service that manages location data.

And I guess at that point you could say "but then there should be a single
tool that does location management for apps and location tracking should be
entirely separate", but I'm not sure why that's any better than "there's one
app but you can toggle off the objectionable parts in a really straightforward
way".

Or perhaps you mean that they could just provide raw GPS data and the app
developers could handle everything else, but that too runs into power and
usability issues. Android handles geocoding and reverse geocoding in
relatively energy efficient (and reliable!) ways. If every app had to do its
own geocoding, you'd have disparate experiences in apps. (Note that Apple does
almost the same thing: there are builtin geocoder objects provided by the OS
that convert from GPS to address over the network). You could make that a
separate thing, but then you'd get people complaining that "none of my
location based apps work even though I have GPS enabled".

So I guess I'm curious what your suggestion on what they should do instead is.

~~~
CaptSpify
> I believe there are power and compute related reasons that you actually do
> need there to be a central service that manages location data.

That may be, but they could open up that service for me to run on my own
server, rather than through them.

> And I guess at that point you could say "but then there should be a single
> tool that does location management for apps and location tracking should be
> entirely separate", but I'm not sure why that's any better than "there's one
> app but you can toggle off the objectionable parts in a really
> straightforward way".

I'm not following what you mean by this. Can you expand?

> If every app had to do its own geocoding, you'd have disparate experiences
> in apps.

And? I already have disparate experiences in apps for tons of reasons.

~~~
joshuamorton
>And? I already have disparate experiences in apps for tons of reasons.

So because some things are a bad experience, we should make more things a bad
experience? I don't follow. Or do you mean that you as an end user, not an app
developer, should be able to configure the server used to look up the mapping
of gps coordinates to street addresses used system wide, as though that isn't
a giant security vulnerability? (as in, if I were Uber or Lyft, I wouldn't
want to deploy my app on a platform where another app with root privileges
could, for example, change the GPS lookup location to something adversarial
whenever uber was in the foreground, leading to bad end user experiences).

As far as I know, apps can already do their own geocoding (no one could really
stop them), they just don't because the built in ones are better and give
consistent experiences.

>I'm not following what you mean by this. Can you expand?

I guess I'm not clear on what the problem with "I get my location through
google play services" is. Like I understand why one might take issue with "the
only way to get location data is to opt in to Google having my location
history". But that's not what happens, since you can turn that off. So I'm
unclear on why Play Services being the source of location data, as opposed to
something else.

~~~
CaptSpify
> So because some things are a bad experience, we should make more things a
> bad experience?

I don't see how disparate experiences are bad experiences. Those are two
entirely different things.

> if I were Uber or Lyft, I wouldn't want to deploy my app on a platform where
> another app with root privileges could, for example, change the GPS lookup
> location to something adversarial whenever uber was in the foreground,
> leading to bad end user experiences

Is there any reason this can't be done today? I already have root on my
platform, and, afaik, I can spoof my gps coordinates. Besides, if you don't
like how a platform has set up its permissions, then don't develop for that
platform.

> But that's not what happens, since you can turn that off

You can flag a button, that tells you that it is turned off. There's no way of
knowing whether or not they actually keep my data.

~~~
joshuamorton
>I don't see how disparate experiences are bad experiences. Those are two
entirely different things

Inconsistent experiences is perhaps the single biggest complaint about Android
as a platform. This is on comparison to iOS which has much stricter controls
on how things can look and what you can do. Unified interfaces are better
experiences. Predictability is a part of good ux.

>Is there any reason this can't be done today? I already have root on my
platform, and, afaik, I can spoof my gps coordinates. Besides, if you don't
like how a platform has set up its permissions, then don't develop for that
platform

I'm honestly not 100% sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's the kind of
thing that only possible via BusyBox or whatever.

As for the second part of your comment: losing Uber for a feature that will be
used by 6 people is not a reasonable trade-off for a platform to make.

>There's no way of knowing whether or not they actually keep my data.

Well yes there is. You can see all the data Google has one you via takeout.
For location specifically, there's timeline.

Unless you mean that you think they are lying and secretly storing your data
in which case there's a plethora of legal reasons they can't do that. You're
veering off into conspiracy territory.

(I work at Google but these opinions are mine alone)

~~~
CaptSpify
> losing Uber for a feature that will be used by 6 people is not a reasonable
> trade-off for a platform to make.

Than it stands that Google values money more than they value designing a
system with their user's best interests in mind.

> Unless you mean that you think they are lying and secretly storing your data
> in which case there's a plethora of legal reasons they can't do that.

Yeah, because Google _never_ lies about what they do with data, or how they
collect it. /sarcasm

I have no direct evidence of them doing it this time, but fool me once...

The point is that they _could_ make it work without being dependent on Google
Play Services, but they choose not to.

~~~
joshuamorton
>Than it stands that Google values money more than they value designing a
system with their user's best interests in mind.

No, they value their average user over you specifically. If the average user
will gain more from Uber than from the feature you suggest, it is in Google's
users' best interest to not implement that feature.

>Yeah, because Google never lies about what they do with data, or how they
collect it. /sarcasm

Then you can certainly name all the other times? There are a number of
complaints about Google that I've heard, but being secretive about what data
they collect is a new one.

~~~
CaptSpify
> No, they value their average user over you specifically. If the average user
> will gain more from Uber than from the feature you suggest, it is in
> Google's users' best interest to not implement that feature.

No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not
to. And I can't think of any way that preventing users from controlling there
own data could be good for users.

> Then you can certainly name all the other times?

I can't name _all_ the other times, but they misuse our data so often, they
publish statistics about it:

[https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-
data/overview?use...](https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-
data/overview?user_requests_report_period=authority:US)

~~~
joshuamorton
>No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not
to.

If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform,
adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the
user" rings true here.

To put this another way, if your "feature" harms the ecosystem, it is not, in
fact, a feature.

I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the
accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about
responding to legally binding government requests.

While you may feel that handing data over to the government is a misuse,
Google is not secretive about this. They're very straightforward about the
fact that they will obey lawful requests, and they're transparent both with
affected users, and the general public, about when and how they comply with
those requests, as evidenced by the report you just linked.

So I'll try this again: since you accused Google of lying about collecting
data or lying about what they do with it, can you substantiate that
accusation, by giving examples of Google lying about what data it collects, or
lying about what it does with that data?

~~~
CaptSpify
> If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android
> platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You
> are not the user" rings true here.

That's a big if. I highly suspect that Uber wouldn't want to leave one of the
biggest platforms just because of a simple option that might already exist.
What if Uber demanded to be able to have root on Android phones? Would Google
be willing to bow to that because losing them would be a "net loss to Android
users"?

I'd have to ask you to point out why giving user's more ways to manage their
data "harms the ecosystem".

> I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the
> accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about
> responding to legally binding government requests.

Yeah. I did. It doens't matter _why_ they lie, it matters _that_ they lie.
Especially If they are willing to lie to me about how they use my data, they
why wouldn't they be willing to lie to me about how they collect my data? And
I fully admit that I have no direct proof of them lying about how they collect
data, but I don't see why you would trust a company that regularly lies to
it's users about what it does with that data.

~~~
joshuamorton
You haven't actually shown an example of them lying though. Are you saying
that complying with lawful requests for data, as Google explicitly stares it
will do and then publicly announcing the ways it complied, as well as when
lawful, announcing to the affected users, is lying? I find that difficult to
believe.

~~~
CaptSpify
> Are you saying that complying with lawful requests for data, as Google
> explicitly stares it will do and then publicly announcing the ways it
> complied, as well as when lawful, announcing to the affected users, is
> lying?

By not notifying their users that their data was breached they aren't being
honest about how how data is being used. They could also set up the system in
such a way that their user's data couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not
to.

Not exactly the actions of a company that I would consider trustworthy.

~~~
joshuamorton
>By not notifying their users that their data was breached they aren't being
honest about how how data is being used.

But they do notify the user unless doing so is illegal (and then, they do so
when it becomes legal). You still haven't substantiated this claim of lying,
unless you are claiming that "obeying the law" is lying about how data is
being used. But again, Google is clear that they will obey court orders.

> They could also set up the system in such a way that their user's data
> couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not to.

This is also one of those things that appeals to a small group of privacy
enthusiasts, but isn't actually a good thing for the average user. The same
set of changes that make it impossible to as you describe it "mishandle" data,
also make it impossible to recover data in the case of user error. If you're
willing to make that tradeoff that's fine, but for most people, the looming
spectre of a court order is a much less worrying issue than forgetting one's
password.

That may not be the case for you, and that's fine. But to say that not doing
that is unethical is a stretch. See this thread[1], where a number of security
professionals who to my knowledge aren't Google-affiliated (and me, who is
neither a security professional, nor independent) discuss this.

It comes down to the average user's threat model not involving state level
actors. Designing a broadly appealing service to respond to that threat is a
disservice to the average user, because it comes at the cost of other
features.

You personally may have a different threat model, and that's ok. But to claim
that anyone who does not follow your exact threat model is lying or
mishandling data is disingenuous and potentially harmful.

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853477)

~~~
CaptSpify
Im sorry, but I cant take any of what you are saying seriously. You can ignore
the facts all you want, but an uncomfortable truth is still true.

~~~
joshuamorton
I'm not ignoring any facts. You haven't substantiated any of your accusations.
You're the one who is transforming "transparently obeying lawful warrants as
they disclose they will" into "lying about data usage", or at least that's the
best interpretation of what you're saying I can come up with.

If you want me to engage with facts, please provide some first! I can't ignore
what isn't there.

~~~
CaptSpify
> I'm not ignoring any facts.

You most certainly are.

Fact: They are willing to lie to me, and are unwilling to set up their systems
in such a way that they don't have to lie to me.

Fact: They could also set up the system in such a way that their user's data
couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not to.

Bonus Fact: They say that they store our data securely, but it's clear that
they don't, if they _can_ comply with a NSL.

You keep making up excuses for them, but those don't matter. The facts matter.
If I'm wrong, then it would be easy to prove, and I'd ask you to do so.

> You're the one who is transforming "transparently obeying lawful warrants as
> they disclose they will" into "lying about data usage", or at least that's
> the best interpretation of what you're saying I can come up with.

And what is factually wrong about that? If I ask them if my data is being
mishandled, they'll tell me it isn't. And by not notifying me of breaches of
my data, they are lying about the quality of the security of their system.

~~~
joshuamorton
>And what is factually wrong about that?

Because Google states that it will comply with such orders. That means that
they do not lie to you about complying with court orders. They tell you in
advance that they will comply with them. This isn't a case of Google saying
"we will never give your data to the government" and then walking back on
that. That would be lying. But they don't do that, they say

> We will share personal information with companies, organizations or
> individuals outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access,
> use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary
> to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable
> governmental request

(edited for formatting from [1])

So again, what is the lie?

I already explained why 'designing a system so you can't comply with an NSL'
is a nonstarter. The design requirements to do that make such a system
untenable for most clients, for example most corporate clients need data
recovery features that are _impossible_ in a system designed to meet your
requirements.

[1]:
[https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/](https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/)

~~~
CaptSpify
> Because Google states that it will comply with such orders.

So Google saying that it will lie to me means that they aren't going lying to
me? OK

> I already explained why 'designing a system so you can't comply with an NSL'
> is a nonstarter.

No, you gave a poor excuse as to why Google won't do it. That doesn't mean it
can't be done. In fact, _many_ other organizations do it all the time. Google
simply chooses not to.

~~~
joshuamorton
Sharing your data in exactly the way they describe in their privacy policy is
not lying. You may disagree with the policy, but that doesn't let you redefine
words.

And yes there are providers that claim to offer such security. I've already
explained why such offerings are unappealing to a large swath of consumers.
There are mutually exclusive features that are more appealing to a wider group
of consumers.

Are you saying that Google is wrong to respond to consumer demand?

~~~
CaptSpify
> Sharing your data in exactly the way they describe in their privacy policy
> is not lying.

But they refuse to tell me when my data has been compromised. They also say
that my data is stored securely, when it is not. That is lying.

> Are you saying that Google is wrong to respond to consumer demand?

Not at all. I'm saying that Google could build their systems in such a way
that they can't comply with an NSL. The reasons why they choose not to are
irrelevant. It matters that they made that choice. Additionally, there is no
reason that they couldn't make it optional.

~~~
joshuamorton
>But they refuse to tell me when my data has been compromised.

Yes, they will not share when your data is requested under an NSL until that
NSL is lifted. This is stated clearly. Every other service provider is exactly
the same way. _No matter who your service provider is, they will act in the
same way: possibly attempt to fight the order, turn the data over, and not
tell you about it until the order is lifted._ The only difference is that with
certain end to end encrypted services, the data they hand over may not be
useful (or it may be, metadata is often valuable and often can't be secured
the same way). In other words, your super secure e2e encrypted mail service is
still going to have to give user logs to the NSA, and they still won't tell
you about it.

So if that's what you consider lying, then literally every company in the US
government's jurisdiction will lie to you about when certain data about you
has been compromised. In other words, such a definition of "lying" is vacuous,
and I'd ask you to give an example of a company either real or theoretical
that does what you ask.

>They also say that my data is stored securely, when it is not. That is lying.

This, once again, comes down to your definition of securely. Your threat model
is different than the average users'. To the average user, their data is
stored securely. (Note: I'm also not sure where this claim is made, feel free
to cite the place you're thinking of, I expect that Google is quite explicit
in what they mean by "secure").

>Additionally, there is no reason that they couldn't make it optional.

Elsewhere you stated that you believe Google has backdoored your device via
Gapps and is secretly transferring your data to their servers despite your
having opted out.

In this thread you've stated that you believe that Google " lies about what
they do with data, or how they collect it", despite having no evidence of them
either lying about what they do with data (as I've demonstrated at this point,
they are crystal clear about what they do with data, you just have ideological
disagreements with those things), nor any evidence of them lying about what
data they collect (you haven't even provided supposed examples of this).

Am I supposed to believe that if Google did provide such a feature, we
wouldn't be having this exact same conversation, but with you stating that
Google's secure option was secretly backdoored, and they had access to your
data anyway?

~~~
CaptSpify
To be frank, you are wasting my time by repeatedly ignoring the facts that
I've outlined. Providing poor excuses for why these facts are, doesn't negate
them as facts. If you'd like to continue discussing these facts, feel free to
hit me up on the side, but I'm not going to engage in this thread any more.

Have a good one

~~~
joshuamorton
At this point all I want to know is the companies who won't lie to you when
given a national security letter.

------
cfv
Well I mean Google seems to be a lot less eager to give detailed behavioral
profiles and social graphs to random people who ask nicely.

------
paulie_a
One of the few times a headline ends with a question mark the obvious answer
is in fact: "yes"

Google is evil. Facebook is worse.

~~~
libdjml
I know I have an unexplainable bias toward seeing google as inherently
positive to society, so I’m keen to hear what makes you think google is evil?

~~~
CaptSpify
They intentionally design their products in such a way that puts their user's
privacy and security in danger, by not putting the user in control of their
own data. By using Advertising as the basis for their business, they have
encouraged a _huge_ race to the bottom for other online services. They also
tie themselves unnecessarily into other parts of the web, and degrade the
experience in efforts to consolidate power for themselves.

------
zitterbewegung
They are both equally scary but Facebook has been caught with their hand in
the cookie jar and now everyone is aware of it. Note , I am not claiming that
Google will be caught doing this.

------
jugad
I don't know the nuanced answer but overall Google seems less irritating, and
less fake (because G+ failed)?

~~~
rootusrootus
And they don't have Zuckerberg.

Seriously, though, I think some of it is that Google is a little more
transparent. They ingest tremendous amounts of data about you, but for the
most part it's while you do things you would otherwise do. Facebook is a
destination, an environment unto itself, and it's impossible to ignore that
it's addictive and sucking you in over and over. So you use it, but hate it
all the same because it has too much power.

I've looked at the data Google collects on me, and it's probably more
frightening than what FB has managed to gather. Google has all my search
queries to look at, every place I've driven, etc. All without me really
noticing.

------
ThoAppelsin
Google surely can draw a network of its ever-logged-in users just with their
ad services alone:

1\. You visit a page with some Google ad at home.

2\. Someone else at home visits another page with some Google ad.

3\. Your browsers make the request through the same IP address, marking you as
potential acquaintances.

With the frequency of this happening, they can put weights on the edges to
mark how closely you are related to that other person. And since they _can_ ,
they _will_. Otherwise, it would be the loss of this great opportunity for
them.

I don't see Google being any less manipulative than Facebook, with all the
capable tools they have now. They are ever-present, can track you almost
regardless where you visit (ads and analytics), they can gather information
about your profile/network, and most importantly, they curate the information
presented to you (search and ads).

------
mtgx
I'm a little concerned with this type of posts. I understand there are other
companies just as bad or maybe even worse than Facebook, but shouldn't we
focus on them one at a time?

This type of articles tend to have the tone of "hey everyone does this, so
maybe what FB is doing isn't so bad?"

That's a mistake and it's misleading. There is a reason The Guardian published
Snowden's stories one at a time. People can't get mad at everything all at
once. They get into analysis paralysis. Let's fix the issue with Facebook.
Then once that's done, we can move on to Google. And then once that's done we
can move on to the ISPs, and so on.

But if we throw this "the whole world is terrible and every company is bad"
story at people, they aren't going to do anything.

------
maxxxxx
They are both scary enough to limit both of them. I don't think we should
choose one or the other.

------
jasonvorhe
Isn't this rhetoric getting tiresome at some point?

~~~
fareesh
This has been a long time coming.

[https://twitter.com/georgesoros/status/964471195793068032](https://twitter.com/georgesoros/status/964471195793068032)

I posted about it here, but was heavily downvoted because mentioning this man
automatically brands you as a conspiracy theorist.

It's really naive to think he doesn't know the news before it's news.

~~~
r3bl
It's really naive to think that this only became news in 2018.

It's rather obvious that both Facebook and Google are conglomerates that know
way more then they should about us.

That has been the case since at least 2012. There's nothing newsworthy about
that.

------
Sylos
I was expecting some more points on how Google actually does scary things,
too. I can recount more points off the top of my head than this article lists
and the headline seems to suggest that this would be the main-point of the
article. Instead, it's mostly just a platform for this François Chollet's
opinion, which is even biased into quite the opposite direction.

------
smsm42
Depends on what scares you.

If you are worried about your privacy, Google is way scarier. If you don't use
Facebook as a social networking site, the data it will have to you is minimal.
Can be made even smaller with a couple of extensions available on all
browsers.

Now Google owns one of the largest ads network in existence, which means
you're being tracked by Google every time you set foot on any site that runs
ads. Plus, those that don't probably use Google Analytics, which is also
tracking you. Plus, there's Youtube, Google office suite, GMail (even if you
don't use it, half of your correspondents do, including many companies so you
don't even know by domain name that you send data to Google). Plus, Google
Drive, etc. Plus Android, plus Google Play, plus Google Maps, etc. The amount
of your private data that is going to Google, if you have any online presence,
is stunning. Google is clearly scarier.

Now, if you're worried about these data being used in partisan political
battles, the picture is different. As we know by now, both US political tribes
has been able to successfully collect and use Facebook social graph data for
their purposes. Facebook management remains more or less neutral so far on
this question - while the top management undoubtedly belongs to the blue
tribe, and, as we've seen, has been glad to provide access to blue tribe
campaigns, the red tribe has been able to use the data too. For Google, again,
the company is managed by the blue tribe, and openly sides with it at every
opportunity, but we don't know anything about how or whether the data is used
for political purposes. If you are concerned about the red tribe gaining the
same access to private data and control over mega-corporations as the blue one
has been enjoying so far, Facebook would be scarier for you, while Google
would look pretty safe - even though they have a lot of data, people with
correct tribal affiliations are guarding it, so no need to worry there.

------
gator-io
If the DNS/cert leakage problem can be solved, the ISPs won't be able to see
or inject anything with HTTPS usage rising:

[https://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?id=https](https://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?id=https)

LetsEncrypt.org now has wildcard certs. No site should be using HTTP anymore.

------
jkFeiwi
Can't we agree that both are scary? You can live without both.

------
sureaboutthis
Neither scares me in any way whatsoever. What does scare me are those who use
Facebook as their source of information for how to run their lives.

------
gerash
I personally prefer Google over FB. I haven't deleted my FB account because
that's my contact list of some sort but I am not very active. I guess I prefer
the Snapchat model where what you post doesn't stick around forever. I'm not
fond of the aggressive, greedy bro attitude of FB in moving fast and breaking
things. On the other hand I use Google services all the time.

Folks whining about data collection should realize Google hasn't decided to be
an ad company, it's just they have succeeded monetizing it better than their
more recent cloud offering and in future their hardware business. So it's not
an ad company because it does everything top down based on what would make ad
business succeed. It's just that the search product is popular and placing ads
next to it pays well. If you're complaining about seeing ads and are not using
the paid GSuite version or non google services for email for example, it means
you don't care enough and perhaps should stop whining about a free service
you've opted to use.

This is also somehow true about FB. they're trying to monetize their Oculus
business but it doesn't pay as much as the ad business I guess.

IMO the solution to data collection isn't to completely stop it as it'll make
the services less tailored to individuals and dumber. Instead I'd rather the
data be collected but under full control of the individual. So I can decide
who gets to access it and for how long.

~~~
jonathanyc
> If you're complaining about seeing ads and are not using the paid GSuite
> version or non google services for email for example, it means you don't
> care enough and perhaps should stop whining about a free service you've
> opted to use.

This and you characterizing people opposing Facebook and Google as “whining”
does not contribute to the discussion. If you think not paying for a service
revokes your right to complain about it, why are you even comparing Google and
Facebook at all? Your comment is neither insightful nor consistent.

~~~
gerash
I didn't say those who don't pay for a service have no right to complain.

I'm opposing the constant characterization of what Google and Facebook do
[successfully and other companies do too but less successfully] which is
collecting behavior signals to tailor ads and services is inherently
nefarious.

But again, if one opts to receive some service for free, they sure can
complain but I don't think they are guaranteed any change to that service
based on their complaint.

IMO what matters is that users have alternatives and are not locked in.

------
sidcool
I doubt all fault lies with Zuckerberg here. Because he is doing what the
system rewards, maximizing investor wealth. And that means companies will do
everything to profit, and only apologize if caught. Facebook won't have cared
till 2025 if they were not caught. Same with Google may be what they are
doing, and they are more careful than Google in getting caught.

------
vasilipupkin
I'm really confused by the whole anti Facebook thing. Agree they messed up on
privacy, but calling them evil, useless, etc seems over the top. I like FB and
find it useful and don't care if somebody has my public profile data, since
its public already

~~~
zombieprocesses
What's even more shocking is google's PR team here claiming that google is
working to "improve" the world. It's so disgusting and tacky.

------
dudul
The main difference from my point of view, as a Google and a non-Facebook
user, is that Google actually provides useful services. From GMail, to Maps,
Drive, etc. Facebook (as I see it at least) provides zero value. It creates
toxic echo-chambers and countless studies have proven again and again that it
makes people miserable.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Facebook provides a ton of a value to lots of people. In many cases its their
entire social circle and how they communicate with them. Just because it
doesn't create value for you or I doesn't mean it creates value.

~~~
dudul
I knew somebody would say that. And that's why my comment is sprinkled with
"IMO", "from my point of view" etc.

Now, is it really a good service to help people manage their "social circle"
in this manner? Not according to me.

------
senectus1
Facebook is less trustworthy than Google.

Facebook has a very full history overflowing with deceit, misdirect, lies
theft and not really giving a toss when getting found out.

Google has tripped up once or twice and actively tries to fix its problems.

I find Google a lot less scary than Facebook.

------
xkcd-sucks
Maybe, maybe not. But, it would be a wasted opportunity not to kill Facebook
right now because the political will of the resist-trump crowd makes the
attempt more likely to succeed.

~~~
aylmao
Yet the argument could be made that without Facebook, the duopoly on online
advertising could become a monopoly by Google.

They'd definitely hop in and try at a social network again too. They have your
voice, your live location, your email, your texts, your photos including a
model of your face, your search history, your youtube viewing preferences, and
they wouldn't miss the chance to hop in for your social graph and "likes" too.

------
dibstern
Google edits its search results to achieve political agenda. This is worse
than Facebook, which is just used by other political actors. Google does it
without a profit incentive, and if its own accord.

Evidence: Search “European History” or “American Inventors” in google.com. Now
go to www.google.es and search “gente europea historia” or “inventor
americano”.

------
AlexCoventry
Google is scarier in terms of its capabilities, but it's starting from a more
solid ethical foundation.

~~~
wutbrodo
I feel like this is a piece that people elide pretty frequently. The Google
founders have spoken about tons of things over the years, and consistently
come across as being principled and passionate, even if your moral foundation
is different from theirs. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, set the tone with the
"dumb fucks" IM and has only recently gotten better at not projecting contempt
for his users. I honestly couldn't even pin down what his ethical foundations
are, given that they seem to swing with the tides of public opinion and what
PR message is currently convenient ("connect the whole world! every
interaction is a good one!" \--> the more recent "maybe some social
interactions are bad, only 'good' ones from now on!").

It's of course entirely possible that this simply means that the Google guys
are better at personal PR than Facebook is, but at the very least it helps
explain why the perception of each is different.

~~~
aylmao
Mark Zukerberg has a foundation with his wife, and they have vowed to donate
99% of their net worth to it [1]. This is Bill and Melinda Gates level; they
also pledged to donate the vast majority of their wealth (95%).

Sergey cheated on his wife with a Google employee (who was like 20 years
younger and dating another executive) and got a widely publicized divorce [2].
We don't have transcripts for Sergey and Page, but how do we know they didn't
also think their users were "dumb fucks", or weren't nice people in college?

I am of the opinion that to become a billionaire you have to step on a lot of
people; I am not one to think that Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are moral guides
for anyone, and this very much applies to Page and Brin too.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Chan_(philanthropist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Chan_\(philanthropist\))

[2]: [http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/entertainment/life-
aft...](http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/entertainment/life-after-a-
cheating-google-tycoon-ex)

EDIT:

> I honestly couldn't even pin down what his ethical foundations are, given
> that they seem to swing with the tides of public opinion and what PR message
> is currently convenient

Two points on this:

1\. Google's mission is to "organize the world’s information and make it
universally accessible and useful". What's the "ethical foundation" behind
that? Do we know this will make the world a better place? "Useful" for whom?

2\. Both Google and Facebook are advertising companies. They optimize to sell
ads.

~~~
wutbrodo
I'm making no claim as to how they are as people, but rather what they see as
the philosophical center of their organizations. "Cheated on his wife" and
"has a foundation" couldn't be less relevant. Bill Gates, as you mention, is
practically the poster child for charity, and yet the idea that that implies
much useful about the principles that animated Microsoft under his tenure is
foolhardy.

My statement didn't say anythjng about who they are as fully-rounded human
beings, and even further, spoke only about the _perception_ of what their
company's philosophies (as embodied by their founders words) are. You're
flattening the nuance of my statement into a simple-minded "Sergey good, Zuck
bad" that I didn't come close to expressing.

The rest of your comment is pretty much a non sequitur and this is already a
pretty long response, so forgive me for not addressing it (though I'm happy to
if you think I'm being unfair to your point).

~~~
aylmao
> I'm making no claim as to how they are as people

Well, sorry I thought you were, but when you say "consistently come across as
being principled and passionate" and talk about who Zukerberg was as a person
when he was 20 (when he made the "dumb fucks" comment) and his "his ethical
foundations", it very much sounds you're making claims about them as people.

> spoke only about the _perception_ of what their company's philosophies

If you say "It's of course entirely possible that this simply means that the
Google guys are better at personal", by personal I'm gonna assume you mean
surrounding their person, not their companies, and personal PR _is_ very flat
and all about "Sergey good" or "Zuck bad". My comment was meant to give the
other side of the coin: it's evident you personally see Google's founders as
better people ethically, and Zuck as lacking principles, so I gave you an
example of the opposite to complement your point of view and hopefully give
you a more rounded vision of them. They're all people, with their flaws and
strengths; neither has it all figured out.

> The rest of your comment is pretty much a non sequitur and this is already a
> pretty long response, so forgive me for not addressing it (though I'm happy
> to if you think I'm being unfair to your point).

I don't mind long comments, feel free to address it. (:

~~~
wutbrodo
> it very much sounds you're making claims about them as people.

That's not an unreasonable interpretation, but it isn't what I intended. Their
personal PR about how they run the company matters because these are unusually
founder-driven companies, and even more so in terms of perception. Just as
most people think of the President as more of a king, most have an image of
Facebook as Mark Zuckerberg's personal playground.

> it's evident you personally see Google's founders as better people
> ethically, and Zuck as lacking principles

You have me wrong here. As I said, I was speaking about perceptions of them.
As I said tho, that's not unreasonable, since in the name of succinctness, I
presented the view and only afterwards indicated that I was focusing on
perception.

------
bitmapbrother
Is Microsoft scarier than Google? Unlike Google, Microsoft tracks and profiles
you online via their search engine and through all of the "telemetry" Windows
sends back to them. Also, doesn't Microsoft operate their Azure cloud service
in China that is run by a Chinese state run company?

~~~
jonathanyc
> Unlike Google, Microsoft tracks and profiles you online via their search
> engine

Citation seriously needed. “Unlike Google?” Who are you trying to kid?

~~~
bitmapbrother
Are you seriously suggesting that Bing doesn't track users? Who are you trying
to kid.

 _Microsoft is able to recognize the same user across devices by using an
anonymous identifier (MSID). The MSID is used to describe a persistent unique
identifier used by Microsoft Advertising to deliver targeted ads and recognize
the same user across devices and Microsoft services. Customers have a choice
to opt out of targeted advertisements that use the MSID by
visiting[http://choice.microsoft.com/en-us/opt-
outand](http://choice.microsoft.com/en-us/opt-outand) turning off the control
that says “Personalized Ads Wherever I use my Microsoft Account”_

[https://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-launches-universal-
eve...](https://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-launches-universal-event-
tracking-206467)

~~~
jonathanyc
What on Earth? My comment takes issue with your claim that Bing is “unlike
Google.” Google’s privacy policy explicitly allows them to use queries for
advertising, _not_ “unlike Bing.” Why are you trying to paint Microsoft as
exceptional here?

> We use the information we collect from all of our services to provide,
> maintain, protect and improve them, to develop new ones, and to protect
> Google and our users. We also use this information to offer you tailored
> content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads.

[https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/#infouse](https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/#infouse)

~~~
bitmapbrother
>Google’s privacy policy explicitly allows them to use queries for advertising

So does Bing.

 _Finally, as described in the Display of Advertising section of this
document, we may use search query data for the purpose of personalizing the
ads we display to you as you use our services or those of our advertising
partners._

[https://www.docracy.com/0fap0koedur/bing-com-privacy-
policy-...](https://www.docracy.com/0fap0koedur/bing-com-privacy-policy-tos)

>Why are you trying to paint Microsoft as exceptional here?

Microsoft tracks their users using their Bing and Yahoo search engine.

Microsoft sends vast amounts of Windows telemetry back to their servers. The
services sending this telemetry data cannot be turned off.

Microsoft has broken into the accounts of their users.
[https://mashable.com/2014/03/28/microsoft-hotmail-email-
priv...](https://mashable.com/2014/03/28/microsoft-hotmail-email-
privacy/#6uTLAXq9qiqD)

Microsoft operates data centers in China that are run by Chinese state run
companies that allow the Chinese government to examine any user data they
want.

 _Microsoft Azure operated by 21Vianet (Azure China 21Vianet) is a physically
separated instance of cloud services located in mainland China, independently
operated and transacted by Shanghai Blue Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. (
"21Vianet"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Beijing 21Vianet Broadband Data
Center Co., Ltd._

[https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/china/china-
welcome](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/china/china-welcome)

~~~
jonathanyc
Oh my God, why are you acting like you are disagreeing with me when you are
now saying _exactly_ what my original comment said?

"Unlike Google, Microsoft tracks and profiles you online via their search
engine and through all of the "telemetry" Windows sends back to them."

This is your original comment. Do you see how you are disagreeing with
yourself now?

"So does Bing." "Google’s privacy policy explicitly allows them to use queries
for advertising, not “unlike Bing.”"

The first quote is from your comment, the second is from mine. Where on Earth
do you see disagreement?

~~~
bitmapbrother
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying. My intent was to imply that if
you're going to wrangle Google into the Facebook clusterfuck then you better
put the spotlight on other companies that have done more nefarious shit than
Google.

------
kbaker
The one time Betteridge's Law fails us.

> Chollet bristled at this. “This is the laziest kind of thinking—just because
> two things share some superficial similarity (they’re large tech
> [companies]) doesn’t mean they’re equivalent,” he said.

But... the article is just a riff off of Chollet's tweets about working for
Alphabet. Mostly about Facebook anyways.

~~~
iamdave
I too had thoughts of Betteridge but in the opposite: it definitely applies
and he article gives us a few examples.

But after a second read of the article I think the answer instead of being a
flat "no", the answer would probably be more accurately answered with "depends
on who you're asking"

------
basicplus2
Its a bit like saying..

is getting smashed in the face with a brick really as scary as getting getting
smashed in the face with a rock?

------
greggarious
It's a lot simpler to avoid Google though. I've been using DuckDuckGo for a
while now and the switch was simple.

There's no network effect like with Facebook, hence less ennui about it.

~~~
dijit
I feel like this is at least slightly disingenuous.

Sure, your friends keep you hooked on FB but there are other methods of
communication.. Even if they're FB owned (like whatsapp).

But google owns the most dominant browser right now, they're spidered into
most websites using their analytics engine.

They handle more email than the next 5 providers combined, and they have the
most dominant mobile OS on the market.

~~~
wutbrodo
Does any part of that address his point though? Almost every single one of
those things you mentioned is part of some federated system, which means you
can be the only person in the world not using it and not have your usage
affected too heavily.

Your friends can include you in text groups no matter what carrier and phone
OS you use, they can include your email even if your mail server is located
under your couch, you can visit websites even if you use Firefox or Safari or
IE or Opera or Iceweasel or Edge or Dolphin or.... By contrast, you can't
decide to be the only one in your friend group without a Facebook acct and
still be included in eg event planning and photo sharing, unless your friends
make th extra effort to keep a separate channel open for you. That's what the
term network effects _means_.

(Yes, I'm entirely aware that the canned response to this is "they're not your
real friends then" or "get better friends"; I personally don't use Facebook
for anything but event planning/accepting and the occasional communication
with an extended member of the family without having to go through a chain of
getting people's numbers. But as to the people that don't recognize any
potential benefit to a tool like FB for coordinating meaningful social events,
I can't help but wonder if they just have very tiny social circles. This isn't
a bad thing by any means, but it's bizarre to assume that that's how everyone
socializes)

~~~
dijit
"everything here is federated" is not rebutting my point at all.

Sure, you can host your own website without GA, but then you're in a circle of
1.

Unless you don't email people with googlemail accounts, don't use GA websites,
avoid android and anybody who uses it and disallow chrome browsers from
accessing your content, then you're still kinda in googles reach.

Which is far more invasive than facebook, facebook at least requires you to
actually be an active participant in a system that at its core is about
telling people about yourself.

Google wants this data and is willing to "pay" for it with free services.

------
digitalantfarm
I hear so many people talking about this like there's literally no way about
going around these issues.

Is it that unimaginable to use an alternative search engine like DuckDuck go?
To use tor? To use a VPN? To disable javascript? To block ads? To put some IPs
in your /etc/hosts? To use OpenOffice instead of Google Docs and MS Office? To
use Proton Mail instead of Gmail?

These products even have nice user interfaces these days! Privacy isn't that
hard. These companies offer a service for free (mostly). If you can't do it, I
think it's mostly because you just don't care.

~~~
projektir
Maybe because you're not convincing the average person to use those services
anytime soon, and that is who matters.

------
whatyoucantsay
Facebook is ethically bankrupt, but their power is much more limited. Google
is nothing less than the greatest threat to humanity. Trump, North Korea,
militant Islam and Putin all pale in comparison to what Google is capable of.
Only Xi's increasingly nationalist and modernized China is capable of remotely
the same kind of threat, but Google has a huge lead in military robotics and
will _probably_ reach the AI tipping point first.

They have been a beautifully gilded trojan horse, beloved in the beginning,
but in the end most of humanity will likely regret having given away so much
to Google.

