411–420 of 527 posts
Funny how a website that announces alternatives to Google Products has a flash of unstyled content because it uses... Roboto as the main body font. Roboto is a typeface developed by Google...
Using a font developed by Google doesn't help Google track you. Protecting your privacy != doesn't mean rejecting absolutely everything by Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me the value is in not having to spell it. When I say @gmail.com no one ever typos that half.
With your own domain, you can shorten the part before the '@'. You could call it "forename@lastname.com" instead of "forename.lastname@gmail.com".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that "privacy-focused" tends to be conflated with FLOSS. Rather, it's nearly impossible to guarantee privacy in proprietary software. The transparency of FLOSS makes it trustless. Want to know what data of yours, if any, is being collected? Look at the code. This is why, when it comes to privacy, Apple isn't worth consideration. All we have is their word, and that simply isn't enough.
> Want to know what data of yours, if any, is being collected? Look at the code. I find this to be an extremely un-compelling position. A relatively small proportion of the general population has the skills to meaningfully look at the code, never mind the time. Moreover, even for someone who is capable, such an exercise quickly becomes non-trivial on an unfamiliar codebase for an app of any complexity. In many cases…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My primary goal of using Google alternatives is to deprive Alphabet of revenue. Privacy benefits are secondary.
Why do you want to deprive Alphabet of revenue, if not for their privacy-disrespecting business model?
I'm specifically concerned about their approaches and attitudes on AI and Life Sciences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (particularly for porn) I had not considered Bing a serious competitor to Google's search engine until now.
>> (particularly for porn) > I had not considered Bing a serious competitor to Google's search engine until now. I can’t tell how much humor was intended here, but that’s a serious competitive point that had not occurred to me. Ever. It’s not something that MS could use in a marketing campaign, but could easily sway lots of people to give it a try when they otherwise wouldn’t.
After DDG recently switched to imprecise search, ignoring what I really search for, the same way as Google does for a while, I don't see any use for it anymore. Is there another good alternative for precise search? Thanks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you want to deprive Alphabet of revenue, if not for their privacy-disrespecting business model?
Read a cyberpunk book. The mega-corp as focal point for resources, innovation and political clout is a scary thought. Consider the almost exclusive dataset they have moated "everyone" else out of, and the long line of disingenuous/unethical business practices. The privacy considerations are the proverbial top of the iceberg.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I quite understand your argument, could you please elaborate a bit? I have always been under the assumption that fame grows linearly with wealth and the more famous someone is the less privacy they hold. Is that inaccurate? I could tell you that Warren Buffet is 1.78 m tall and that I know where he was born but I honestly know nothing about the minimum-wage-working Bob Smith.
If you were to find the most personal details of this Mr. Smith it would be far easier to do that. You could sit outside his house whole day long and observe his every move, dumpster dive into his trash and get documents, even bribe a certain official and get more info out of him/ her. I don't think any of that will be possible in the case of Warren Buffet.
If anything, Ad companies would more aggressively target the wealthy because they have more money to spend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you don't inspect it personally, there's a greater community of people who don't get their paycheck from Apple who may be looking at the code. Regarding the Intel comparison, you have no choice but to trust them, but by using Apple products, you are trusting Intel and Apple, which is worse than just trusting Intel.
> who may be looking may be This is called faith
In this case I decided trust the open-source community more than Apple, since the incentives of people inspecting open-source code probably align better with my own interests than the incentives of Apple.