Hacker News Reader

Comment by pleasecalllater | Hacker News Reader

So what do you use instead?

I do use Chrome. I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know. I don't trust Google much but I trust them more than I trust a random third party, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"

> I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know.

How can you be so sure about that?

I can't in the same way I can't be sure the Mozilla Corporation isn't pulling another Cliqz on me. So what's your point?

The point you made is (simplified) "Chrome is better than Firefox for privacy". Yet you brought nothing to support this beyond "the devil you know is better". Especially since Google is heavily relying on marketing your data to the point where they gather it covertly or force users into privacy breaking situations.

Common sense would lead anyone to assume they don't collect it just to flip bits on a storage device. Just when you thought you knew the devil. Knowing this guess you'll drop Chrome now, right?

[0]-[over 9000]

So tell me about this devil you know and how exactly knowing all that still pushes you to believe it's the better option?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18042802

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252

[3] https://mashable.com/article/google-chrome-69-forced-login/?...

[4] https://gizmodo.com/google-stores-location-data-even-with-lo...

[5] https://mashable.com/article/google-android-data-collection-...

[6] i can go on but I'm pretty sure a modicum of good will from your side would be enough to get the point.

You can't. But Google is an ad company and an ad company does not just give away their most valuable resource, the data. So it's more about the devil you know then the devil you don't know.

An ad company can sold your data in various forms and formats. Maybe it won't sell your raw data, but will sell you nevertheless.

Even if it doesn't sell your data, it can use your data to make their ads more efficient for you and people similar to you. While that's their business model, they are borderline abusing you in the process. This not something I'm comfortable with.

> and an ad company does not just give away their most valuable resource

Correct. They sell it for money. How exactly is that better at keeping your private data private? Google's power doesn't reside in the fact that it keeps your data private but in the fact that they have a constant flow of up to date data. When you hand over data to a company whose revenue (also) officially comes from monetizing it your privacy is forfeited.

They sell recordings of your activity for money, and you don't even get a cut. No royalties, no nothing. So they are profiting from your actions, without paying you. Bit unethical right? I generally consider my time valuable enough to sell it, and my actions even more so.

I think it is more a "better the mobster with a vacation home in town" essentially - while a bad actor's interests are aligned. They may still screw you over but if they are greedy ironically on your side.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com