Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

De-googling, so far

blog.nradk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–197 of 197 posts

Re: De-googling, so far

#191

Post by noman-land »

extr wrote: post #157
noman-land wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because this stalking happens invisibly in the guts of a Javascript file it doesn't make it any different than following me around every street I walk down and noting down everything I look at. Here's the metaphor. Google offers free video cameras to any person who wants them. The cameras collect thousands of data points about every single person who enters their field of view. The cameras pick up every movement…

So tl;dr the actual practical impact is just that you see more relevant ads when you’re visiting websites.

No, the practical impact is the stalking, not what the fruits of that stalking are used for.

Re: De-googling, so far

#192

Post by noman-land »

pennybanks wrote: post #160
noman-land wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because this stalking happens invisibly in the guts of a Javascript file it doesn't make it any different than following me around every street I walk down and noting down everything I look at. Here's the metaphor. Google offers free video cameras to any person who wants them. The cameras collect thousands of data points about every single person who enters their field of view. The cameras pick up every movement…

okay but you do realize they give you there products to use right. and you probably use them or at least use products that need them to function. thats the deal and i doubt anyone would rather it be for cash instead. i mean would you rather pay monthly for chrome or firefox? pay per google search. pay monthy for youtube. pay for android os. monthly for maps. hell google can stare at my naked ass all day for all i car…

I think anyone, given the choice, would rather pay for something with costs that are clear and up front, not buried in an evolving ToS that boils the frog.

You're welcome to make this Faustian bargain for yourself, but you don't get to make it for the rest of us, and neither does Google.

Re: De-googling, so far

#193

Post by abenga »

pbronez wrote: post #182
abenga wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried Kagi once and never really felt like it was good enough to make me want to pay for it. Search is like air. Very important, but available everywhere for free. Pretty hard for me to justify adding another subscription to the already extant mountain.

Continuing that metaphor… Google is the air of a teeming metropolis in a developing country. Every breath is polluted with foreign substances that someone else out there. Your capacity suffers as each action is taxed by the aerosolized tar. searX is mountain air. Pure, but cold and so so thin. You struggle to collect enough oxygen, waiting for the life-giving molecules to trickle in. A bracing adventure for most, a h…

> Google is the air of a teeming metropolis in a developing country. Every breath is polluted with foreign substances that someone else out there. Your capacity suffers as each action is taxed by the aerosolized tar.

Is it though? To the extent that I need to pay for an alternative? I struggle to recall when I ever searched for something and went down to the second half of my screen. I do agree searching using the Google app on an Android phone is crazy, but who would subject themselves to that? On a browser with a proper ad blocker, I don't see how it is that horrible.

Do you have an example of a search where Google gives such an odious result, but another engine's is excellent?

Re: De-googling, so far

#194

Post by violet13 »

Jensson wrote: post #174
violet13 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They by and large don't. Most creators on YouTube aren't even eligible to monetize, especially if they're making niche educational content. Google just pockets all the revenue if you have fewer than 4,000 "public watch hours". If you put together an a concise 4-minute DIY video, an average view time will probably hover around 1 minute, and you will need 240k views to qualify. Most videos on YouTube get under 1k views…

> Google just pockets all the revenue if you have fewer than 4,000 "public watch hours". If you put together an a concise 4-minute DIY video, an average view time will probably hover around 1 minute, and you will need 240k views to qualify. Most videos on YouTube get under 1k views. With less than 4k public watch hours your channel has barely made any money. It is accumulated for your videos for the entire channel, t…

YouTube runs ads on all my videos, including the ones with fewer than 200 views. I'm not sure what you're getting at otherwise. The point I was making is that paying for YouTube does absolutely nothing to support the vast majority of content creators on the platform. All you're doing is paying Google, and a tiny slice of that supports a handful of celebrity content creators like Mr. Beast. Maybe it's a bargain that makes sense to some, but the parent was deriding the grandparent for not willing to pay.

Re: De-googling, so far

#195

Post by ok_dad »

sneak wrote: post #178
ok_dad wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll agree in some capacity that ads are a scourge today, but what’s your alternative? You can’t just burn down the world ave start fresh, there has to be a better way and a plan to transition. Those who would just burn the world down are not mature. This applies to just parts of the world, too, such as “advertising must burn” or “let Y country burn because of X problem” (paraphrasing). I cannot agree on blackballing…

It’s possible to survive doing things that aren’t shameful and destructive. If we don’t shame and blackball people for their freely taken adult decisions about how to spend their time and direct their effort, what can we shame or blackball people for? It should be hazardous to your career to engage in certain types of business. Mass murder, advertising, spyware, spam, network abuse (DDoS), or conspiracy to commit sam…

Hot take, putting advertising employees at the same level as literal murderers.

Re: De-googling, so far

#196

Post by protonmail »

poochkoishi728 wrote: post #23

Does anyone know how private ProtonMail is? I heard admittedly crackpot-sounding rumors that it was some sort of NSA honeypot, but verifying them seems like proving the existence of a divine being.

Proton's encryption provides privacy by default - we cannot access any of the email content, email attachments, calendars, files stored on Proton Drive or passwords, 2FA codes, notes etc. on Proton Pass, and therefore cannot share any of this with any third parties. We have also discussed such baseless claims of connections to NSA with our users on multiple occasions, including here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/14demhj/debunki....

Re: De-googling, so far

#197

Post by protonmail »

balderdash wrote: post #78
poochkoishi728 wrote: post #23

Does anyone know how private ProtonMail is? I heard admittedly crackpot-sounding rumors that it was some sort of NSA honeypot, but verifying them seems like proving the existence of a divine being.

I mean after the Crypto AG / Project rubicon came to light (let alone many of the disclosures since) I don’t think you can rule it out - but at least it’s unlikely your data is for sale /being actively used against you for commercial purposes

We understand your concerns, however there is no comparison between Crypto AG and us. Our encryption occurs client-side, our cryptographic code is open source ( https://proton.me/community/open-source ), and our tech can and has been independently verified. More about this here: https://proton.me/blog/is-protonmail-trustworthy.
Post reply on HN