
Why I’m Worried About Google - DyslexicAtheist
https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-is-losing-users-trust.html
======
CosmicBagel
For some reason this was also a breaking point for me. I've switched to
Firefox and Duck Duck Go. It's a small thing, but boy do you start to feel
like a second rate citizen fast. The state of extensions on Firefox is a mess.
I can get the usual privacy extensions easily enough, but things like using
media keys to control videos playing in the back ground. Or how in the phone
app of Firefox you need to pull up the side menu to refresh instead of just
pulling the page down. It's all small stuff, but it adds up.

But despite this, and the lower quality search results of DDG, I'm still going
to push forward with degooglifying my stuff. But I'm in deep. Drive, keep,
Gmail, photos, hell I'm even typing this on a pixel 2. It's gonna take a
while.

It's been surprisingly difficult finding a good replacement for keep. If
anyone has suggestions I'm open. I'll probably make the shift to protonmail to
replace Gmail. Not sure what do to about drive at this time.

The issue is that Google's stuff has always been very reliable and performance
(well performant enough). For example I'll often ping Google.com for a network
test. Google.com is never down, it's always my hardware, or my ISP, never
Google.

Im just rambling at this point, but I think somewhere in there is a point
about reliability, ease of use, and security that makes Google's products so
compelling. Hence why they'll be able to get away with privacy issues like
this.

~~~
gustavmarwin
To replace Google Keep, you definitely want to checkout
[https://standardnotes.org/](https://standardnotes.org/) \- Going back to
Google Keep would make me feel like a second class citizen today...

As for the Pixel it's ok, just switch to LineageOS, but you'll want F-Droid +
Yalp, or F-Droid + Aptoide if you feel adventurous (awesome project but they
are just getting started.

Drive... I'd recommend Nextcloud, but then you need to choose a provider since
it's decentralised. If you're in Europe I'd say woelkli.com, if you're in Asia
or America sorry I don't know what to recommend but I'm sure there are good
options. Nextcloud will do a lot more for you if you need (CalDAV, CardDAV,
Password manager, Bookmarks manager, etc).

~~~
breakpointalpha
Standard Notes looks interesting, but isn't the root issue that these services
tend to drift over time into places we don't like? Evernote, Apple Notes, etc.

Would it be better to just use something like Emacs org mode and store the
data in .git?

~~~
ghostwreck
Check out some of the principals of Standard Notes [1]. It's built to avoid
this exact problem. I've been using it for over a year after migrating from
OneNote and highly recommend it.

[1] [https://standardnotes.org/longevity](https://standardnotes.org/longevity)

------
robin_reala
It’s the closing paragraph that’s the important bit:

 _In the end, this is why I’m moving away from the Google ecosystem. If
nothing else works, then at least I can vote with my feet—or my fingertips._

Google have set their path, so it will take effort for them to deviate from
it. The best way to show them that the effort is worthwhile is to affect their
bottom line by reducing your use of their services. And maybe you’ll find that
the competitors are still there and pretty good.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Firefox is fine and DuckDuckGo is good enough by now.

Firefox has the added bonus that it doesn't implement a two tier cookie
system. Of which one tier cannot be deleted.

This, in combination with the new and improved "sign-in-convenience" convinced
me that Google is exactly as dirty as any other tech company and should be
avoided like the plague, wherever possible.

~~~
bla2
DuckDuckGo is mostly a skin on Bing search results. By using it, you're saying
you trust Microsoft more than Google. If that's your intent, cool, but you're
not really getting away from the big tech companies by doing this.

~~~
gpm
Hardly. DuckDuckGo claims not to share my information or searches with
Microsoft. I trust DuckDuckGo (not Microsoft) to keep their word.

The fact that DDG sources information about the internet from Microsoft is
unimportant. I'm concerned about my personal information, not large scale
manipulation of search results.

~~~
BeetleB
In that case you could use
[http://www.startpage.com](http://www.startpage.com) \- it's a wrapper around
Google, and your information isn't shared with them.

~~~
keb_
I would use this if it weren't so darn slow.

I've tried searx instances as well, but couldn't find one that functioned
consistent to my liking.

~~~
user812
Recently I deactivated Javascript on Startpage (with uBO) and surprisingly it
suddenly loads fast.

Believe it or not they are injecting all kinds of ad related JS.

I am even questioning their sincerity, since the page is badly optimized for
usage.

------
bla2
> But it brings users within an accidental click of sharing their bookmarks
> and browsing history with Google.

It's two clicks, you need to be really explicit about it. The first click
opens a huge "You're about to turn on sync" dialog, where you have to click
"Yes, I'm in" again.

I don't disagree with the general sentiment, but the article isn't factually
correct. It's also by the same person who misunderstood the recent chrome
changes and wrote a long blog post triggered by them misunderstanding what was
going on ([https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gyny83/google-
chr...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gyny83/google-chrome-sync-
privacy)).

~~~
matthewdgreen
Could you tell me what claims in my post were incorrect? So far nobody at
Google has disputed them, just pointed out that they don’t activate sync
(which my blog post already stipulates.)

~~~
bla2
"Google developers claim this will not actually start synchronizing your data
to Google — yet"

It sounds like you got up in arms because you thought that chrome now auto-
syncs when you sign in to gmail, and wrote the blog post draft. Then you
learned that this isn't the case but you kept your arms up anyway, added that
unsubstantiated "\- yet" and hit "publish" anyway, despite nothing really
having changed.

(Disclaimer 1: I used to work for google, so I'm likely biased to give them
more benefit of doubt. Disclaimer 2: This is a shared HN account (the password
isn't exactly hard to guess), so not all of its comments or posts are written
by me.)

~~~
matthewdgreen
If you look up my Twitter account, you’ll see that I had a long discussion
with multiple Chrome engineers days prior to writing the post, and there they
explained the sync distinction to me. The post clearly explains the situation
(mandatory login, but not sync) and articulates several reasons why I think
it’s still an issue even if Google doesn’t auto-synchronize — a guarantee I
don’t feel confident relying on in the future. In those various Twitter
threads I also identified several problems with the Chrome privacy policy,
which Google had to quickly update on a Sunday as a result.

[https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/10433312293267496...](https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1043331229326749697?s=20)

------
mxuribe
I have already begun to vote (against Google) with my feet/fingertips. I
realize that even if I use non-Google products/services - much like the Kevin
Bacon game - I'm only so many degrees away. But still, I feel i have at least
a little more agency over my data. If I do this (move away from google), and
then another person does this, and then another...eventually if many more do
this, there could be a dent; which would hopefully more positively influence
google (AND others like google); in essence manually move Adam smith's
supposed invisible hand.

------
ekzy
I've switched to Safari and DuckDuckGo last week. I can still search on google
with the DuckDuckGo shortcut !g when the duck doesn't quack. I tried Firefox
but it became too slow. Safari is actually pretty good, for me the main
problem is that it reduced my productivity for web development (I need to get
used to the safari devtools) and the lack of some browser extensions (redux
devtools etc). For now, I keep switching back to chrome for web development.

~~~
move-on-by
DDG's bang features are great. You might be interested in the !sp bang - which
takes you to StartPage (a proxy for Google). This way you can still get the
Google results without using google when DDG isn't cutting it.

~~~
user812
I heard they still ping Google because they also have google ads on their
site.

------
Spartan-S63
With all of these emerging privacy concerns, it reinforces my choice to move
away from the Android and Google ecosystem insofar as I can.

It reinforces my choice to embrace the Apple ecosystem. While their products
aren't perfect, they do take your privacy seriously and you do pay for it. But
to me, that seems like a fair trade. Additionally, they have second to none
customer support, so it's going to take a company providing the same level of
support (3-5 business day repairs on laptops) for me to move away from Apple.

~~~
qubax
Every post about google, facebook or privacy, there is a PR comment about
Apple.

Apple doesn't care about privacy any more than google believed in "do no
evil". They collect data on you just like google does. They buy data from
other vendors like google does. They sell data on you.

The idea that a company who gives data to the chinese government cares about
privacy is laughable.

[http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-apple-
china...](http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-apple-
china-20160226-story.html)

You shouldn't confine yourself to an "ecosystem" controlled by one company. Be
that google or apple.

~~~
jaegerpicker
Literally nothing you said is true. Apple doesn't sell your data and they
collect dramatically less data which has been proven numerous times. This is
basically a cheap attempt at trolling.

------
pm90
The default on is a favorite ad-tech strategy; its how a lot of websites
gather customer data, since most users couldn't care less that they're always
signed in, always sending browsing/tracking data to other parties.

There is little regulation in online advertising; GDPR helped a lot but most
ad revenues are still generated in the US. I have a feeling that some
regulation would go a long way in improving the online browsing experience and
prevent incidents like this, which can get tiring: every time a trusted
internet company makes a privacy "error", everyone is outraged, we shame the
company to getting better yadda yadda.

------
decasteve
I wonder if, in a couple of generations from now, we’ll be browsing private
messages, emails, browsing history, etc—all the “private” details that Google
et al, have amassed—much in the same way the Stasi files are available now.

~~~
CiTyBear
We already did with NSA : [https://opendatacity.github.io/stasi-vs-
nsa/english.html](https://opendatacity.github.io/stasi-vs-nsa/english.html)

~~~
rolandog
That's... Unsettling.

------
ckastner
As a non-native speaker, I would have expected the title to be "Why Google
Worries Me".

"Worried About" sounds like it's Google who's being negatively affected by
this, but that doesn't seem to be the main point of the story.

Is this a common pattern?

~~~
Stratoscope
Your wording is certainly better than the ambiguous article title. I would
write it your way too.

"I'm worried about X" _usually_ means that I'm concerned for X's welfare, but
not always. It takes some context to disambiguate the phrase.

A couple of examples:

"I'm worried about that stray kitten."

"I'm worried about the lion perched in that tree."

They are both felines, but clearly in one case I'm concerned about the cat's
safety, in the other case what the cat might do to me.

------
MikeTV
Today Google popped up a little survey in the corner of my account page, with
questions like "I trust Google to keep my data private", "It's easy to find
out what data Google has on me", that sort.

Answers were one-click response buttons: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree (top to bottom, in that order).

The first time I clicked "Strongly Disagree", a few questions in, the next
question had the order of the answers reversed so that Strongly Agree was on
bottom. Submitted an opposite sentiment before realizing what happened.

Strikes me as manipulative, like the survey really isn't so much for
discovering my opinion as it is for collecting favorable ones. I wonder who
will get the results, and to what end?

~~~
Paul-ish
That's common in surveys. It's to see if you are paying attention.

~~~
MikeTV
I've noticed that with single-question responses such as Amazon's "why are you
returning this" drop-down, and it makes total sense there. A consistently
random arrangement means that users picking just the top answer will have no
more influence on the overall report than random noise. Makes less sense when
available answers are the same for each question, such that the user might
have mentally cached them to avoid rereading.

However, n=1. The timing might have been coincidental.

------
observr9
Firefox doesn't highlight find-in-page search results on the scroll bar.
Chrome does.

Am I the only person who relies on that feature daily for their work?

~~~
ktosobcy
For me, highlighting all occurrences and ctrl/cmd+g (next) is enough.
Jetbrains idea does the highlight in scrollbar but I don't find it useful.

~~~
observr9
If a method is used several times at the top of the page, and you want to find
out if it's used elsewhere, without the highlights, you don't know that. You
have to hit Next until you make sure it's nowhere else. With the highlights,
you immediately see that the block you're looking at is it, and you can move
on to a different file.

------
orf
Firefox.

~~~
demxzy
Firefox is looking more like a very good insurance policy going forward
privacy-wise. I would like to see more open source browsers though. It feels
like we are getting nearer and nearer to browser mono cultures with all the
chromium clones. Maybe Ms can release edge as an opensource app with it being
far behind in adoption.

~~~
GnwbZHiU
There's also Brave browser by Brendan Eich. It's still very young and have
issues, but it's getting better over time.

~~~
tannhaeuser
Before using Brave, you should consider if you value their business model as
ethical (I don't). What they do is filter-out ads and replace them with ads of
their customers.

~~~
user812
No they filter out ads.

Then they give everyone the opportunity to use a Patreon-Style support or view
Ads, optionally.

Why isn't it ethical to target big Ad-Tech middle men like Google and Facebook
and increase efficiency and privacy at the same time?

~~~
lern_too_spel
The publishers didn't agree to it. Brave is not allowed to unilaterally
dictate terms. If I'm going to steal from publishers, nobody should benefit,
especially not some smarmy browser vendor. Similarly, if I'm going to pirate,
I'm not going to pay some piracy middleman who makes up some cryptocurrency to
send to the content creators.

Of Firefox, Chrome, and Brave; Brave is by far the worst browser of the bunch.
It's not even pretending not to be evil, let alone trying and failing like the
others.

~~~
user812
But that's essentially was Google is doing: dictating things unilaterally.

And that's also how the web was founded. No one agreed to anything. People
just started to build.

If there isn't a law against it, they are allowed to do it.

Everyone who uploads free content on the web without a paywall essentially
says "take it and display it however you like".

Besides that, Brave is essentially building a sustainable model in favor of
publishers. They will be very thankful.

It is ad-blocker without an alternative model that is problematic for
publishers, not Brave. So I don't see why anyone besides Ad-Tech has a problem
with Brave.

You conveniently ignore that most publishers desparately want to see a new
model succeed, because Google and Facebook take too much of a share of the
publishers. Brave takes less then Google et al., so publishers get more.
That's why publishers like the Guardian are already on board.

Brave isn't free of problems, but arguing from a moral perspective isn't
legitimate. So where does your hostility come from? Do you work for some big
ad-tech company?

~~~
lern_too_spel
> But that's essentially was Google is doing: dictating things unilaterally

Nonsense. The publishers agreed to sell their inventory to Google, just as the
movie studios agreed to license their content to Netflix or sell it on DVD.

Everything else from your post stems from this fundamental misunderstanding
about how publishers monetize their content.

> That's why publishers like the Guardian are already on board.

Then it's ethical for Brave to monetize The Guardian's content. It is not
ethical for it to monetize everybody else's. The same with a piracy service.
If a piracy service resells content it has an agreement from the owner to
resell, that's kosher. It doesn't mean that it also gets to resell everybody
else's content.

> Do you work for some big ad-tech company?

No. I'm just not stupid enough to accept Eich's stupid output.

~~~
user812
Brave does not monetize content. Everything that is monetized goes to the
wallets of publishers, minus a fee.

Publishers don't "sell their inventory", since everything a website puts up on
the web is essentially free. Consequently there isn't a licence involved, in
contrast to your movie example. The publishers chose Google as their middle-
man to make money with ads.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> Brave does not monetize content. Everything that is monetized goes to the
> wallets of publishers, _minus a fee_ [emphasis added].

Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence.

> Publishers don't "sell their inventory", since everything a website puts up
> on the web is essentially free.

They have spots on their web pages for advertisements that they sell to Google
or other ad networks. Brave unilaterally takes those spots from the publisher
for a price the publisher never agreed to.

> The publishers chose Google as their middle-man to make money with ads.

That's the point. They sold that inventory to Google, not to Brave.

~~~
user812
Well, after all it's called user-agent, not publisher-agent ;)

------
post_break
I'm trying so hard to move my email away from Gmail. I have a paid proton
account by the syncing for desktop and the mobile app is terrible. Are there
any other options out there? I switched to Firefox and I love it so far.

~~~
corobo
It gets thrown around a lot and in my opinion for good reason - I've switched
to Fastmail[1] myself. I've got the $5/mo account because I wanted to bring my
own domains.

Had it for a while just forwarding everything to my gmail but have now cut the
forwarding and switched fully. If you're in the Apple ecosystem the app I
attribute to finally moving was Spark[2], which I discovered after Google
announced it was killing off Inbox

[1] [https://www.fastmail.com/](https://www.fastmail.com/) [2]
[https://sparkmailapp.com/](https://sparkmailapp.com/)

~~~
jtmarl1n
Doesn't spark scan your email box like GMail used to? I haven't found anything
recent stating they have stopped that practice.

~~~
corobo
What does that mean? I imagine it has to scan my email if it's to provide the
search functionality.

If you're hinting at something more untoward could you spell it out for me, I
can't find anything that painted it with an ugly brush

~~~
tannhaeuser
A basic mail service is about IMAP (and P0P3), rather than webmail with full-
text search. Searching through your mail is performed on your own computer
using Thunderbird or another mail client. If your mail provider scans your
email for targetting, you should switch to a paid provider where you are the
customer, rather than the product.

~~~
corobo
I understand how mail works trust me, I used to manage a fleet of about 40
mail servers in a past job _shudder_

I'm sorry but these comments aren't really saying anything with any substance.
If my mail provider "scans my email for targetting" \- Do you mean ad
targeting? Both the mail host and the app are paid products, not ad supported.

~~~
tannhaeuser
Sorry for not being clear and stating obvious things. I just wanted to express
that IMHO a mail provider has no business of scanning your email (for ad
targetting or other purposes), and should not get away with this. In fact, if
your email provider engages in such things, then that could be a reason for
another person/org to not send you mail over that channel, which kind of
defeats the purpose of email.

------
bryanlarsen
Google always knew that trust was very important to their long term growth and
viability. It's why "Don't be evil" was their motto for so long and it
actually appeared to be more than lip service. That motto is gone, and now
they're actively monetizing that accumulated goodwill.

~~~
Hikikomori
It's still in their code of conduct.

------
ex3ndr
For me breaking point was enabled by default google assistant on any Android
phone. Not assistant itself, but one smaaaal feature. If you hold home button
a little bit longer phone takes screenshot and uploads it to google to
recognize it. That... just insane. I only wonder why no one is talking about
this?

------
allthecybers
I was done with Facebook several years ago even before I knew they were
complicit in the subversion of our democracy.

And recently I deleted my last Google account after moving domains, voice
number and email to other providers.

These are marketing companies and you are their product. This will only get
worse. Opt out now.

------
GreeniFi
I think it’s probably possible to model credit-worthiness according to search
history and site use patterns. Google’s partnership with Mastercard could be
something to do with that. What would be particularly irritating is if Google
start showing credit offers next to product ads. Eg you look at an advert for
a new iPhone and google then lets you know Mastercard will give you an
immediate credit line for an impulse purchase. Marketing strategy is obviously
focused on overcoming your will power to buy things you want but don’t need.
One of our last lines of defence is: I can’t afford that right
now...Mastercard and by axiom Google profit when you don’t think like that.

~~~
tyingq
From: [https://adwords.googleblog.com/2017/05/powering-ads-and-
anal...](https://adwords.googleblog.com/2017/05/powering-ads-and-analytics-
innovations.html)

 _" even if your business doesn’t have a large loyalty program, you can still
measure store sales by taking advantage of Google’s third-party partnerships,
which capture approximately 70% of credit and debit card transactions in the
United States"_

Who knows what other 3rd party data they correlate...

~~~
GreeniFi
Wow.

------
fluidcruft
I don't think anything's actually changed in terms of how you can be tracked,
it's just being made obvious to you. If you don't want your browsing linked to
your gmail, use different profiles or use a private browsing window.

~~~
amelius
> If you don't want your browsing linked to your gmail, use different profiles
> or use a private browsing window.

It still requires a mental effort to make sure your information is not linked.
One small mistake (e.g. visit site in wrong browser window) and all your
previous effort is wasted.

Therefore, we need not only technical solutions. We need companies to change.
Perhaps by an update of the law (GDPR for US), and if this doesn't work then
perhaps we should even consider a ban on personalized advertising to make sure
that these companies have no incentive to trick the user into disclosing
personal information.

------
casper345
I have an understanding on both sides. To keep our privacy is something we
initially feel should be our decisions. However, besides companies buying
Google services, most individuals do not pay for Google services. Chrome,
Gmail, Google search, are monetarily free for us. We are paying with our
information. If you use the service then you are saying yes to allow companies
to enact these dark patterns, ethics aside. One could argue if the internet is
a right, but that's another day

Although it would be helpful for some if Google laid it out transparently to
individuals who do not have the technical slop to understand what they are
"losing"

------
nicodjimenez
Google is a brilliant company but ad based business models have weird
incentive structures. When your primary customer isn't actually using your
product it makes product decisions harder. I don't think Google means harm but
it does seem like they are making some questionable decisions. Zuck was smart
to remove ads on FB even though it cost FB lots of ad revenue. Their web
browser change had no obvious benefit for users compare to how creepy it is to
have gmail forced on you by the web browser. they might have some hidden
strategy that will eventually benefit chrome users but it's not clear what
that is

~~~
kangus
I still see advertisements on Facebook. Even more so, in fact. They now have
ads that will cut in while you're watching a video.

------
bnt
To me it sounds like we need a Libre Office of Google Docs (web based).
Everyone is worried about tracking and privacy, but what about the
productivity tools? If you quit Google, you also abandon the GSuite - which is
quite nice.

~~~
detaro
There is an online office suite based on Libre Office.
[https://www.collaboraoffice.com/collabora-
online/](https://www.collaboraoffice.com/collabora-online/)

~~~
bnt
It's not web-based.

~~~
detaro
Link updated, I thought it'd be clear enough I'm referring to the "online"
product.

------
kbos87
The fact that they added a setting means nothing. Settings in Chrome seem to
randomly (but maybe not randomly?) get rolled back from time to time. Are you
going to check the setting every day?

------
ngngngng
I really want to get away from using a pixel (or Android) phone, but an
equivalent iPhone costs literally twice as much. Is it worth it for privacy
alone?

~~~
newsoundwave
Maybe not relevant to you, but my Pixel 2 XL was already $900-ish, so
switching this year to the iPhone XS wasn't a big deal.

I will say a brand new iPhone 8 is also currently $599 (and the 7s is even
cheaper) and will likely get updates for the next 4 years or so.

I've used Android since the original Android phone (T-Mobile G1/HTC Dream). It
felt hypocritical, however, to have switched away from most of Google in my
personal life and still give them access to me through my phone. I dislike
Apple for many reasons, but I'd much rather deal with those issues than
continue to use Google.

------
LiterallyDoge
I just want a company that respects me and my data. Likewise, I want tools
that behave in predictable and understandable ways. Google does not produce
these kinds of products anymore. The small change in workflow with a different
tool is minimal, the gain in quality from working with companies that treat me
with respect is immeasurable.

------
derReineke
As soon as I can find a decent, stable job I'm going to start degoogling more
of my life. Unfortunately, I have a Pixel 2 and a Pixelbook (unfortunately
because Google, otherwise they're great), and I don't have the money to
replace them right now. I do use Firefox and DDG on my desktop though. I
really like them.

------
wlll
I've dumped Chrome over Firefox now. First time I've changed browser in about
10 years.

------
olivermarks
Chrome turns on the fans on my old macbook air which is an audio reminder to
only use it occasionally for specific tasks.

My paranoid side makes me wonder if all the fan activity is because it's so
busy phoning home all the time 'sharing data'?

~~~
olivermarks
My comment was tongue in cheek. I do feel Chrome is v bloated these days
though. Opera and Brave seem to run much more cleanly and faster

------
phakding
What is Google's end goal here? More accurate targetted advertising?

~~~
ataturk
My guess? An unholy alliance between government and private industry which
allows each to get away with things the other can't. For example, squelching
free speech can be done by a private company with practically no impediments.
Meanwhile, governments want to eavesdrop on everyone and develop dossiers on
everyone because that's how you control people. Corporations are doing that
for marketing purposes, but the intelligence agencies are right there in that
data now, too.

Google always had a CIA connection. You do the math on how this works and what
it means now that you can see it all unfolding like everyone else can. They
want total control over your mind and barring that, they want total control
over your behavior one way or another.

What can't corporations do? They can't force people to buy their products or
pay their bills. Governments can, though. It's actually the only tool in the
box. Corporations would love to gather and coalesce the information and then
have the jackboots do the violent stuff to suppress and subjugate. The very
definition of fascism.

~~~
lallysingh
What CIA connection?

~~~
908087
[https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-
goo...](https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-
google-e836451a959e)

[https://pando.com/2015/07/01/cia-foia-google-
keyhole/](https://pando.com/2015/07/01/cia-foia-google-keyhole/)

Search "In-Q-Tel Google" for more.

~~~
lallysingh
Jesus man, that's some tenuous connectivity. The first article's really trying
hard to link investment capital flows into some larger conspiracy. The second
is about generalizing mapping tech originally developed for surveillance
satellites to be used for publicly available imagery, and the purchaser's
obligations to fulfill the contracts of the purchased company. Both are
results of the same underlying issue: defense & intelligence run as
essentially monopsonies for the technology they care about, so they have to
pay to have it developed. Sometimes their result is generally useful (better
search of documents), sometimes it isn't, and sometimes it just isn't for a
while (until publicly available imagery is widespread enough to cover a large
map).

If articles like these are the basis for your conclusions, really take a step
back. I went down this route a little some years ago, and really just felt
miserable for no good reason.

Now the next part of my suggestion is going to sound rough for a second, but
please take it seriously. Check out a book called "The Information Diet" by
Clay Johnson. After reading (it's a really good book, and helped me a lot in
avoiding this sort of stuff), watch a ridiculous conspiracy show on TV. My
favorite recently was about whether mermaids were real.

Listen to the techniques they use in there -- By saying "A relates to B" and
"B relates to C", they ask "Does A relate to C?" Even though A and B relate
only through something remote, and similarly for B and C. But, imply a
conspiracy and suddenly the remote links seem like a cabal of some sort. It's
a manipulative practice to get eyeballs and clicks, and we have to identify it
as toxic before we start taking it in.

------
MusaTheRedGuard
This honestly makes me sad. I really did think google was different

------
known
I think Firefox should rollout its own search engine

------
wlll
I can't read the article becaue their GDPR opt out is (perhaps deliberately)
broken, is there a summary?

~~~
clear_dg
[https://web.archive.org/web/20181003121506/https://slate.com...](https://web.archive.org/web/20181003121506/https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-
is-losing-users-trust.html)

~~~
wlll
Thanks!

------
mrhappyunhappy
Do you think we’ll ever move away from search engines entirely? What’s
stopping us from using alternative means of searching and what would these
look like?

~~~
ThirdFoundation
I don't have an answer, but I have trouble picturing a better option that's
both egalitarian and actually gives the best search results.

The closest thing I can think of almost feels regressive -- sites like
HackerNews and Reddit. What I mean is asking a question there or searching for
threads where other users have asked a similar question. Often the links
provided in those threads are less likely to be provided by advertisers and
actually just promoted by users. That's often where I find the best answers
for things.

But to access those threads I still use Google or DDG because the Reddit
search function is terrible.

Other options, like AOL Keywords (if you remember those) basically just
directly link to paid providers.

I guess it's possible that there is a fair and balanced web crawler, but to
give true freedom and not guide the user to specific the best option still
seems to be a search engine.

Maybe the answer isn't alternative forms of searching but rather alternative
ways to show the results? Right now they look like a ranking list. Maybe they
could be displayed in a map or another form?

------
janpot
This bothers me a little bit

> By clicking “Agree,” you consent to Slate’s Terms of Service and Privacy
> Policy and the use of technologies such as cookies by Slate and our partners
> to deliver relevant advertising on our site, in emails and across the
> Internet, to personalize content and perform site analytics. Please see our
> Privacy Policy for more information about our use of data, your rights, and
> how to withdraw consent.

I need to consent to have your website show me "relevant advertising across
the Internet". If you can't take my privacy seriously, how should I take your
concerns about Google and privacy seriously?

~~~
dpcx
You speak as though an author on Slate.com has any actual say in what
Slate.com does to set policy. It would be the same as if you read this article
on any other "news site" \- so why would you dismiss the author's concerns
about privacy? Simply because they chose to use Slate.com as the outlet for
their statement?

~~~
janpot
Just like he has alternatives available for Google products that respect _his_
privacy more. He has alternatives available for slate that respect _my_
privacy more. He simply chooses to dismiss _my_ concerns about privacy by
picking slate. Why can't I dismiss _his_ concerns about privacy then?

~~~
antidesitter
> He simply chooses to dismiss _my_ concerns about privacy by picking slate.
> Why can't I dismiss _his_ concerns about privacy then?

I don’t see how that follows. Even if the author were positively malicious,
why would you ignore their concerns about privacy, which affect you and
everyone else? It’s a non-sequitur.

~~~
janpot
I'm not saying his concerns are invalid just because he posts them on slate.
I'm not saying his concerns are invalid at all. I would be able to criticize
the validity of his concerns if I were able to read them. I have no choice but
to ignore them because I'm not prepared to pay the price of my personal data.
And I find that quite ironic, since apparently they are about protecting
online privacy in the first place.

------
phmagic
Google is a for-profit enterprise. Currently the company has optimized its
products for what users want: reliability, security, ease of use. The (sad)
fact is that users tend to undervalue their own privacy and data because a
single person's data is not very valuable. They don't see the power of
aggregate data.

The title is a little misleading because it's not Google who choosing this
balance between privacy and convenience. We, the users, are making this
choice. This is what concerns me.

If users choose privacy over convenience, Google would happily oblige. I'm
confident of this seeing the way that the "organic" movement has taken hold.

