Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

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.

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?

>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?

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

> What about my TV, my phone, my iPad?

For iOS there's Onion Browser by Mike Tigas, but it's definitely NOT as privacy resistant as a Tor Browser. For Android there's Orfox and official Tor Browser builds for Android are coming this year.