With about $100b net worth each, I’m going to guess they feel just fine.
That's the thing though. They don't need more money. So why not try to make the world a better place for once? I know they donate to charity but they're uniquely well positioned to influence one of the biggest, and most dangerous, tech company on the planet. I wonder. Do they care? Do they have personal problems that makes the rest seem insignificant? Or do they believe they're truly making the world better?
I've always considered "don't be evil" to be a huge difference from "be good."
What can we as people in top 1% with 1) information about big tech abuses 2) skills to fix this do? Individually we can use browsers like firefox or brave and probably donate time or money to them, but I think it's not enough. I think we would need something like a movement against those abuses, but probably the biggest win would be a business model that could win with them in the free market. Is this possible? Has a…
individually we need to stop working for unethical companies we are the ones building these tools, reading these articles / comments sections, and talking with our colleagues and friends working on developing these products we just have to accept that our takehome might not be as large at the end of the pay-cycle. feels better spending it tho :)
and on a larger scale, a different social model with less consumerism, thus less ads and less big corps trying to ensure more profits by any means. The more we delegate the less we see. I don't like to transfer web to real world but a more peer to peer life could help. Sorry for the fuzzy comment but with the advent of advanced robotics and ubiquitous computing, we'll probably have no choice but to rethink daily lives.
What can we as people in top 1% with 1) information about big tech abuses 2) skills to fix this do? Individually we can use browsers like firefox or brave and probably donate time or money to them, but I think it's not enough. I think we would need something like a movement against those abuses, but probably the biggest win would be a business model that could win with them in the free market. Is this possible? Has a…
I think more whistleblowers and legal ramifications for C-level execs (prison time preferably since they can happily pay any fine thrown at them) is the only real way to do it at this point.
The few experiences I had with whistleblowers is that it's way too sensitive and may never be handled officially by any system/government. They would have done it already :).
Firefox barely runs though. I've had to start opening up Edge just to get Reddit to load because FF slows to such a crawl.
There might be something wrong on your system. I switched a long time ago but sometimes run chrome to compare performance, and it's on a par. If you come across a site where the performance is noticeably worse than in Chrome, it may be worth notifying the owner. The alternative is to live in a Google-controlled dystopia.
> If you come across a site where the performance is noticeably worse than in Chrome, it may be worth notifying the owner.
There is an exception to this - G sites routinely run slower on FF, but this is very likely how Google wants it to be.
> Re: forced Chrome logins. Don't need cookies if you own the browser! ( https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/145209451374118912... ) The swindle with FLOC was pretty obviously tied in this, but people still went in circles discussing whether it's private or not, and downvoting those who said FLOC is a trap. Let's consult the plan, nothing is even secret about this: - Google disables third-party cookies, crippli…
Everyone reading this on Chrome should switch their browser today. Get off of Gmail while you're at it. There is no perfect alternative, but all those reasons why you think you can't switch don't add up to anything a fraction as bad as what Google is doing.
I have close to 15 years of emails stored in Gmail.
Is there an easy way to download that or move it to another provider?
With about $100b net worth each, I’m going to guess they feel just fine.
That's the thing though. They don't need more money. So why not try to make the world a better place for once? I know they donate to charity but they're uniquely well positioned to influence one of the biggest, and most dangerous, tech company on the planet. I wonder. Do they care? Do they have personal problems that makes the rest seem insignificant? Or do they believe they're truly making the world better?
They think they'd decide what the money should be spent on better than you. So being corrupt and taking huge amounts of money in and then spending it on their chosen causes is a net good. It's narcissism
You're tricked if you think so yourself, all the small businesses measure it and that is why FB and Google are so rich. Its like saying you're been tricked to think computers are useful for your productivity, it's insanity. You can argue if big corps spending just to keep coca cola on in front of your eyes is useful or not. To what extent but that's entirely different conversation. When was the last time you died? De…
Agree completely. The sentiment that this is all a shell game and advertisers are being completely manipulated always seems to come from people who don’t have much domain expertise. I’d be quick to throw digital advertising to the wolves but the reality is that it’s extremely effective. Is there a level of opacity? Yes. Are there tranches of junk traffic and ineffective tools put forth by the ad networks? Absolutely.…
No one is saying "advertising doesn't work". We're saying that massively targeted invasive advertising is not significantly more effective than content based advertising. There's plenty of evidence for this assertion.
I have a paid protonmail account but haven't fully switched because the search feature is abysmal.
Their spam detection is true garbage. One year in I had zero actual spams blocked and hundreds of false positives. Unsolicited mail from a direct mailer in India for an SEO webinar, straight to the inbox. Every message from your bank, straight to the spam folder. Am I sure it didn't catch some spam and age it out before I saw it? Yes, because I had to go in every 2-3 weeks to pull my banking messages and other false…
So what you are saying is that they are very good at filtering spam, they just got inbox and junk folders mixed up? ;)
Everyone reading this on Chrome should switch their browser today. Get off of Gmail while you're at it. There is no perfect alternative, but all those reasons why you think you can't switch don't add up to anything a fraction as bad as what Google is doing.
What's a good alternative to gmail? Fastmail? Protonmail? Other? I don't mind paying a small subscription.
I'm very happy with gandi.net, $16.49 per year for a .com domain name and two email accounts (accessible via web, imap, etc), plus aliases. Been around for twenty years. They have a "no bullshit" promise.