[flagged]
It’s not a dupe, the ipullrank.com article goes into much more depth than the one from sparktoro.
[flagged]
Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
81–90 of 312 posts
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#82Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#83Where is the link to the document?
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that preventing "sharing" isn't sufficient. People who are concerned about privacy don't want any such data collected or stored in the first place, ever. The implicit "sharing" of my data with Google (or whatever company) is a problem in itself. Regardless of how "seriously" Google (or whatever company) takes it, for a lot of the data I don't want them to ever have it in the first place.
This is a fair position to take, but assuming good faith all round, one that I think will typically be a minority. If you ask a user if they're willing to share crash reports only to improve the reliability of the software, I'd bet most people would be ok with this. In fact it's sufficiently reasonable that I believe GDPR allows this to be opt-out, something I broadly agree with. I do think opt-outs should be availab…
> assuming good faith all round
But why would anyone assume that? I think the position of many privacy advocates is that we're long past the point where it's reasonable to assume Google is acting in good faith in the best interests of its users. (Again, to be fair, this is true of more companies than just Google.)
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#85I would usually call this a dupe but this article and the other one from SparkToro are completely different even if they are on the same topic.
Haven’t had a chance to look at the API myself but the first impressions are that a lot of this was suspected by SEOs, but Google kept rejecting the ideas. Looks like clicks increase ranking for sure, which means click farms definitely have a legitimate business solution to offer.
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#86Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#87Seriously considering switching back to Firefox after all these years.
I've been using Firefox since the days when it had the other name. Meanwhile, I use Floorp [1], which is based on Firefox, but offers much more possibilities for customization. I am very satisfied, except for the stupid name... [1]: https://floorp.app/en/
Not to be a stickler, but just a note it no longer counts as FOSS or even open source I believe, with their new licence: https://github.com/Floorp-Projects/Floorp-private-components...
It’s left a bad taste in my mouth since they used the work of others to get to where they are, then when others do the same, they don’t like it.
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
"But what if I don't want my own computer to build and share a detailed profile of everyone I know, everywhere I go, all my preferences, and how to manipulate me?" "Well obviously it's your fault for not picking the 'Don't Be Cool' option on subpage 27b-6, duh !"
Yeah. It's victim blaming. Reminds me of "they should have shouted louder". The confusing thing is the crime itself is small on an individual level. The question is: does it add up cumulatively if a small crime is committed against many?
I don't know if it's "Victim Blaming"...I teach Digital Literacy courses for seniors new to technology. While I do set them up with Firefox and Ublock, we generally have them use Gmail as they are all Android Devices. Google sends a confirmation email to walk each one of them through their security settings. Of course most users just ignore this email (like I used to have students do) but now we go through it and uncheck this setting in all my courses, and unpersonalize ads as well. Feel like the most basic user who has even the tiniest concern of data privacy should know how to look at their Google Account settings. These are 80 year olds who don't even know what a "click" is but they know to be skeptical of using Google.
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#89Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#90This just proves all the "suspicions" privacy-conscious users have had about large corporations fingerprinting users, often in very obvious ways. There's often no better place to find ideas for surveillance than the people conscious about being surveilled.
Many of the SEO suspicions were confirmed too. I found it VERY amusing if you go to r/SEO just yesterday there were moderators and flaired users (you know, the elites of the SEO community, lol) insisting much of this was "debunked" years ago. They of course deleted their posts, but the threads are still up. What a den of scammers over there. https://www.reddit.com/r/SEO/comments/1d1eqjj/comment/l5tvfw... https://www.…
It's just endlessly fascinating to me the grift on rSEO
How these types first gain moderator status on a few subs and then the spam begins (picture of spam https://pixeldrain.com/u/a6qUPjTq )
I haven't been able to find a single legitimate expert in the entire sub, and I've checked about every flaired user and moderator.
You have lots of people like the above, or https://www.reddit.com/user/jesustellezllc/ that claim to run an agency in Frenso California called Ozelot Media, but when you look him up there's nothing. When you google "SEO" + "Fresno California", Ozelot media isn't even in the top 100 results. Lol, I thought that was the job of a SEO-type? Why let that stop the grift though?