Heck, most of them think the Internet is Chrome.
In the end Google has achieved something that Microsoft couldn't with Internet Explorer, and won the Browser Wars.
Google managed to aggressively advertise their browser by optional install "offer" within Windows installers of software. And they were aiming exactly at all those who couldn't tell the difference between the web browsers and who were conditioned by more experienced family members, friends etc. to just blindly click "Next Next, Finish". Thus, that was an easy win.
Being here when we had choice between Gecko, Presto, Trident and later WebKit/Blink makes me sad how easily the IT world allowed this nearly 100% monoculture to happen. There are still other browsers but chances that we return to variety and choice of rendering engines are low.
Wasn't that the entire point of Windows Recall as well?
Sheesh, I'm starting to notice a pattern...
While consumers remain surprised by affiliate clauses, the QC problem is considerably different from marketing against those recordings.
The linked article veers into Alexa for the ads part and says, roughly, must not be tin foil hats if everyone believes it – then explains the psychology misleading people in most cases. The "I'm noticing a pattern" thing…
Are there sources where Apple either acknowledges or even settles claims of advertising against secret Siri recordings?
Yes, advertising and selling data to third parties.
> In January 2025, Apple settled a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of current or former owners or purchasers of a Siri-enabled device, specifically: iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, MacBook, iMac, HomePod, iPod touch or Apple TV, whose confidential or private communications were allegedly obtained by Apple and/or shared with third parties as a result of an unintended Siri activation. (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/apple-settlement-95-million-...)
And also https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-france-ads-fine-illegal-dat...
They've also ignored people's explicit requests to not be tracked (https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-whe...)
They've allowed third party contractors to listen to apple customers fucking (and who know what they did with those recordings). Apple's privacy policy says that they'll share (which includes selling) your data with "Apple-affiliated companies" and "our partners" without disclosing any of them.
I've seen claims that they've sold user data to facebook, but I haven't seen any details except the existence of "user-data sharing agreements" between apple and facebook and of course they take millions in cash to hand apple user's data over to google through their search engine.
Apple has been careless about handing data over in response to legal requests (https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-facebo...) and gives a ton of user data to governments in the US and china. According to Snowden Apple partnered with the NSA as a data provider. Apple denied that. They've also denied working with the US government on DROPOUTJEEP.
They honestly don't have a very good track record when it comes to privacy, they're just quieter and less overtly evil about it than Google, MS, and facebook.
(Edit: thinking about it, I think generic terms like "Internet Explorer" should not be trademarkable at all, also I just learned, that also Microsoft "stole" the name and had to pay in a settlement..)
Maybe I'm misremembering it. Google is awful. My goodness. I hate Android and can't wait to be rid of it. Graphene and it's buddies can't roll it fast enough
Does anyone believe a single big tech company isn’t harvesting data en masse from everyone in duplicitous manners?
Like, the best case scenario is that they don’t just blatantly steal your data and instead use dark patterns or inference to take from you without your knowledge.
And then, thanks to the wonderful opinions of the court, the government has full access to said data since you apparently knowingly agreed to giving it to a third party by virtue of the fact that you engaged in any sort of commerce.
It’s why I’m for forcing content being posted on the internet to be non anonymous and tied to a real identity.
The corporations and government already have and abuse all this data. I want the benefit of knowing when someone says “As an American {incredibly divisive shit}” that it’s actually someone in a foreign country sowing chaos for money or political aims.
TSMC, maybe?
Perhaps Cory Doctorow will come up with a better term?
The software companies, for whatever reason, have been largely bad actors when it comes to dealing with users data
It also kind of stinks because not every mistake should be immortalized and recorded forever. Blackmail and all that. It kind of ruins the internet in a different way.
We get all the negatives of anonymity now with foreign actors, domestic actors, and bots flooding the zone with lies, and not of the benefits since all the corporations and governments can trivially pierce that veil.
One uni in my country has been getting bomb threats during the exam period every year for multiple years (a random article says 20 times at least). The whole place gets evacuated each time, nothing is found and nobody is caught.
But people who think they're anonymous because they used a different nick? Yeah, those are idiots, their ISP and the platform knows who they are and anybody can deanonymize them through stylometry.
I don't think surveillance is the solution though. I'd much rather see a network of trust or (second best) anonymous proof of identity.
Any place selling alcohol or cigarettes is able to check if you're 18. They could just as easily check your nationality by looking at your ID and give you a crypto key which can be used to prove that to online platforms without revealing who you are.
But there's no money for big corps in that and most people are not even smart enough to think of it.
Even if NSA captured and logged all internet traffic, they'd still only get a fraction of the information within without breaking all the encryption.
And even if they could break the crypto, the ability would only have any power if/when they acted on it. Which in turns reveals the capability to both normal people and other nation states.
The limitations aren't laws, it's the practical consequences.
Of course, having laws with actual teeth helps.
So they use it when they feel like and not willy nilly? That doesnt change my perspective. They still have the ability to do it at will.
No, when they can get away with it. When the pros for them outweigh the cons. And every person affects that calculation in some small way - by their tolerance to injustice, by their outspokenness, by their ability to detect it, by the probability of an employee becoming a whistleblower and even by people's willingness to punish bad actors extra-legally.
> They still have the ability to do it at will.
Yes and your neighbor has the ability to wait on your doorstep until you open and then slit your throat.
He generally doesn't because of internal safeguards (humans have evolved emotions like remorse, though not all of them feel it - see psychopathy/ASPD for details) and external safeguards (the state generally opposes people infringing its monopoly on violence but in the absence of a state, he would still risk being hunted down and tortured/killed as punishment by your relatives and friends).
---
I get what you're saying and I oppose dragnet surveillance but seeing things in pure black and white does not help.
... or just hiding behind a VPN that exits there?
I believe SUSE, Red Hat don't harvest users data en masse.
What you should've done is saved what they said so you could post it directly as evidence. If they're collecting all the data they can, you should naturally also have the right to do the same! I've noticed they're increasingly memory-holing a lot of things that, somewhat coincidentally, are inconvenient truths.
Here is the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47930833
That last question I don't even want to ask because the first two doesn't seem clear.
This could be simply fixed by adding the feature, and defaulting it off, and letting people learn about it and enable it.
Nobody gets a promotion for doing that.
That's not the goal. Turning your information into their information is the goal. If training an LLM on some data isn't copyright infringement but instead makes it a brand new non-derivative work, then training an LLM on your personal information arguably means it's no longer your personal information, but instead a legally distinct work.
If users' behaviors can be pre-labeled on their own devices, processed with AI, and then sent back, it might save a significant amount of internal computing costs.
https://chromeunboxed.com/chrome-memories-history-journeys
A 4B model is not very useful for text generation, but useful for classification, so you're probably right.
Witch true/false Commie true/false Possible customer true/false
But for it all to go to one place? That's a scary amount of data.
I do like how Firefox now has a "prevent future AI integrations" checkbox[0], but I just don't believe it anymore (i.e. that it won't magically `uncheck` itself and then enable features I've not requested/authorized).
Which is why I just used an LLM to help me create a local network admin rule to disable the update engine entirely (this SHOULD. NOT. BE. NECESSARY).
[•] <https://www.perplexity.ai/search/b0d3bf5d-7ac7-4d4c-b6c6-32b...>
[0] with a sick darkpattern (for most users to laregly ignore)