Google Fights Back • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Fights Back

#391

Post by gniv » Thu, May 09, 2019, 2:04 AM UTC

dreamcompiler wrote: post #355

SquareWheel wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think Google "sells everyone's personal information to advertisers", then you are mistaken about their business model as umeshunni said. Google themselves explain it clearly and openly. https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/

I know Google doesn't literally sell my personal information. They collect it and use it to match a demographic that advertisers want. But the fact remains that Google collects my personal information -- they couldn't match my demographic otherwise. And that means that Google itself is a giant repository of everyone's personal information, even if they choose (today) not to sell it, not to give it to governments on d…

But that's what you said:

> "make shitloads of money selling everyone's personal information to advertisers."

It's a very important difference between trusting Google with the data, and trusting a random advertiser.

Re: Google Fights Back

#392

Post by PaulHoule » Thu, May 09, 2019, 2:14 AM UTC

tinus_hn wrote: post #378

PaulHoule wrote: post #249

This article is uncritical. In particular it doesn't mention the critical problem that Google makes its money from advertising, not from people who pay for premium phones or premium services. That is, you are still the product. I recognize social positives from advertising, but there is a fundamental conflict when you are dependent on "free" services paid for by a third party.

You can still make money from advertisements if you don’t track everything your users do. Magazines don’t know how long you look at a page and they still sell ads. It’s just harder.

The services would still be bad services.

I don't see tracking as the problem with Google.

The problem with Google is that it crowds out competition, also that it contributes to a "data smog" environment. The way we would get better services is to pay for them ourselves so we establish a feedback loop such that encourages better services from our point of view (not that of advertisers)

Re: Google Fights Back

#393

Post by mikedilger » Thu, May 09, 2019, 2:20 AM UTC

Google is not too evil presently, but nothing is guaranteed and the amount of data they have gives them more power than most nation states. So on principle I've been degoogling. Here are my approaches:

  search:  duckduckgo
  android: copperheados (dead ended, waiting for puri.sm librem 5 on order)
  chrome:  firefox, containers, uMatrix.  Isolated usages of chrome w/o logging in.
  gmail:   fastmail
  youtube: peertube
  docs/sheets: local software (libreoffice)
  reCaptcha: isolated chrome usage w/o logging in, or I avoid the website and email the webmaster.
  fonts:   uMatrix block them, I live with the fallback fonts. On my sites I host the fonts locally.
  analytics: uMatrix blocks it. I don't need it myself.
  maps:    OSM or other mapping websites
  earth:   [never needed it]
  sky?:    [never needed it], stellarium

I'll know that I'm invisible to them once my family members start getting funeral service advertisements. Unfortunately, they can still see me.

Re: Google Fights Back

#394

Post by urda » Thu, May 09, 2019, 2:32 AM UTC

throwayEngineer wrote: post #202

areoform wrote: post #7

Google owns my soul. Their boxes know when I sleep, when I wake, how much I exercise, what I listen to, my innermost thoughts, my chats with loved ones, what I watched on Netflix last night, what my company does, the flu I have at the moment, what the hypochondriac in me looks up in the middle of the night, what I buy, whom I call, what I spend money on, where I spend it... I nominally pay for these services, but I s…

You think Apple is less evil than Google? Remember that Apple has been cracked by the FBI, has proprietary connectors, and charges more than anyone. I couldn't disagree more. Apple is horrible to customers and developers.

You mean the Apple that has designed all their hardware and software to not spy on you?

You mean the Apple that takes IoT security seriously that involves a certification process versus Google who just killed off their Nest ecosystem?

You mean the Apple that stood up to the FBI?

Sure proprietary connectors are on some of their products, but it sounds like you consider USB-C proprietary now? Apple has moved a number of their devices to USB-C and that will probably only go up overtime.

Apple has physical retail presence, which makes purchases, repairs, and other interactions easy for customers.

Apple isn't perfect, but I don't think you're looking at the same Apple everyone else is.

Re: Google Fights Back

#395

Post by 2Ccltvcm » Thu, May 09, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

pdimitar wrote: post #80

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is already not Google. The "Don't Be Evil" corporation that valued open source rather than open-washing, that valued openstandards over "oops, we didn't mean to break that for you!" isn't here anymore. The company that bends over backwards, much farther than the law requires, to enable the surveillance state. I despise Apple. Especially on mobile. No SDCards, no headphone jack, walled garden app stores. Ugh ug…

I fully switched from Android to iOS when iPhone X came out in November 2017. I realised in the next months that the perceived "freedom to tinker" on Android is something hugely overrated. I could achieve almost everything I wanted on my iPhone -- it just took a bit of time to find the proper apps. Later Apple added the Shortcuts which is a very solid automation app. Many Android users also lament the lack of a visib…

Use https://microg.org/ instead of Google play services

A free-as-in-freedom re-implementation of Google’s proprietary Android user space apps and libraries.

Re: Google Fights Back

#396

Post by bunnycorn » Thu, May 09, 2019, 2:53 AM UTC

bunnycorn wrote: post #2

Google should fight back at last years promisses. Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant? Last year they promised they would call my hair saloon for me, and it's all BS. Like everything they say every year, it never works in real life. But I see lots of "journalists" praising it, while criticizing Siri as useless. Where is their self driving car too? Never complete, they always promi…

Looks like I bothered some fanboys, the Earth still rotates around the Sun. I don't have time for people that refuse to accept the truth, and the fact is that "duplex" is not even a shadow of what they promised last year, doesn't matter to anyone but for fanboys because the assistant usage is exactly as you expect: Siri the most used, then Samsung's Bixby then Google's... in a market where Android dominates, it's shameful for Google to lose so clearly at their core competence, so they push so hard for their image as a "cut above the rest" that some people actually believe it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/siri-google-assistant-voice-...

This is in the US, where Apple only manages a 36% smartphone market share, and google assistant is available on the iPhone, but Siri isn't on non-Apple devices

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-had-the-most-smartphone-...

Re: Google Fights Back

#397

Post by ycombonator » Thu, May 09, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

I will stick to my on device privacy thanks. I know it costs more but its well worth keeping my entire life out of being a lab rat for company that wants to do good for yet to be born rats.

Re: Google Fights Back

#398

Post by telltruth » Thu, May 09, 2019, 3:47 AM UTC

bovermyer wrote: post #13

I'm impressed with the direction Google is taking, and how they've pivoted in the face of public awareness of privacy concerns. I like the Google products and services that I use. There are some that I miss (Reader) and some that just confuse me (Bookmarks), but the core works for me. Based on commentary I've seen, I may be the only person on Hacker News to think so. Regardless, I'm hopeful for the future.

I'm having hard to time to share your enthusiasm. Google has been leveraging its monopoly more than ever and myself as customer feels our arm getting twisted all the time. They shut down products arbitrarily, most of the time with FU on your face. The quality of main search has been massively in decline with they ignoring most of my keywords and putting generic links all the time. I'm sure they are delusional that this is not the case. Lot of Google products are becoming 2nd rate or even 3rd rate but because of their special treatment on Android and other properties you would be forced to use them anyway. Overall, I don't think Google was the innovative company it used to be. They are mostly in business of milking their monopoly to increase shareholder value.

Re: Google Fights Back

#399

Post by telltruth » Thu, May 09, 2019, 3:51 AM UTC

Most of the things demoed existed before in Translate app. I have used it and as far as I know someone good hearted at Google did this in his/her 20% time. The speaker, who seems to be some sort of executive, pretended that this is new achievement from her side and Google is suddenly socially responsible. I don't get this article and its author.

Re: Google Fights Back

#400

Post by nybble41 » Thu, May 09, 2019, 3:58 AM UTC

mirkules wrote: post #390

nybble41 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NONE of which I consented to Google using. And that is where you are wrong. You DID consent to this use of the information in your email when you signed up with Google as your email provider. They don't exactly make any secret of the fact that the emails in your account will be data-mined, both for the various assistant features they offer and for their own business purposes, including marketing. It is not Google's…

> There are email providers other than Google, and means of communication other than email. Encryption is also widely available for those motivated enough to use it. One more point I’m concerned about is that Google is changing the standard of what is acceptable for an email provider, to read your emails and use them how they see fit. This is something people casually gloss over. Would you be equally as upset if UPS…

> Would you be equally as upset if UPS or FedEx looked inside your packages ... ?

Those packages are sealed. Emails are not, unless the content is encrypted, in which case Google wouldn't have access either. UPS and FedEx are welcome to what information they can glean from the outside of the package. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that packages are routinely X-rayed or subjected to other non-invasive scans, either. Certainly packages crossing an international border are frequently opened and searched by Customs, whatever the carrier and sender might prefer.

More to the point, when you send a package with UPS or FedEx that is a paid service carried out under the terms of a pre-agreed contract. The conditions under which a package may be opened, and how any information about the package may be used, are dictated by that contract. Email is a much less formal system relying on anonymous intermediaries; neither the sender nor the recipient is paying for secure end-to-end delivery. Frankly, there is no reason to assume any email is truly private. You have no idea how many distinct parties may have access to it before it's delivered to its final destination. That's true even if you run your own mail server, let alone relying on a free service offered by an advertising company.

One last thing. Do you really think Google is setting precedent here, "changing the standard of what is acceptable"? Businesses offering free email services to the public have always data-mined users' emails for advertising purposes. Google is just more up-front about it, and more inclined to use at least some of that data-mining to provide add-on services of actual value to most users.