It’s pretty masterful marketing by Google really.
They’ve re-defined privacy to mean “hidden to everyone but google” as in, “google knows everything about me and does a really good job of keeping that information secure”.
I’m very quickly becoming old and weird for clinging to the belief that no one, including google, should know anything about me other than things I explicitly tell them, and they should only use those things for purposes I explicitly permit.
Gen Y often talk about “responsible ads”. Or threads about “devs need to get paid (through intrusive ad platforms)”. It’s… exasperating. I got a notification on my Android phone to configure topic reporting for apps a few days ago.
They’ve re-defined privacy to mean “hidden to everyone but google” as in, “google knows everything about me and does a really good job of keeping that information secure”.
Apple has been doing this for a long time. iPhones don’t track their users any less than android phones, they just let less of it out of Apple’s grasp.
I’m very quickly becoming old and weird for clinging to the belief that no one, including google, should know anything about me other than things I explicitly tell them, and they should only use those things for purposes I explicitly permit.
That’s very sensible.
Every form field needs a “None of your business.” option.
Including marriage forms and birth certificates.
Ol’ Reliable: N/A
Gen Y often talk about “responsible ads”. Or threads about “devs need to get paid (through intrusive ad platforms)”. It’s… exasperating. I got a notification on my Android phone to configure topic reporting for apps a few days ago.
I’ve been lectured about “stealing” content by not subjecting myself to ads, like what? The corporate brainwashing is real.
Yeah there’s a really common misconception that the mere act of viewing ads somehow supports content producers.
deleted by creator
They’ve re-defined privacy to mean “hidden to everyone but google” as in, “google knows everything about me and does a really good job of keeping that information secure”.
Worst part is, they’ve pulled that stunt with “security” before. Confidentiality is one of three core principles of information security. Privacy is that applied for personal information. Logically, privacy is an important field underneath information security.
But thanks to Google’s messaging, you’ve got infosec folks saying shit like Chrome being the most secure browser. Its sync isn’t even end-to-end-encrypted by default, because Google would rather not close off access to your data. You could only consider Chrome secure, if you’re ignoring Google as an attacker.
Google says Topics warning is anti-innovative fearmongering
I’m sorry, google… what did you say?! I cant seem to hear you over the ceaseless, deafening sound of you scraping my data.
Omg! Their scaping yours too?!
googlescaping… the act of alphabet plastering dollar amounts all over your body leading to a google aesthetic (or “googlestethic”).
more seriously, I edited my original post with the “scaping” typo almost immediately. did the change not get federated to sh.itjust.works (or not federated quickly)?
Switched to Mozilla last month haven’t looked back
Welcome! Stay a while and have a hot coco
Same! A bit bumpy at first but worth putting up with the annoyances.
A few details:
The author feels comfortable enough to claim by himself that the “privacy” “sandbox” is neither private or a sandbox. That is not a quote. Google isn’t fooling anyone with this move.
The alleged “five major goals” behind FLoC v2 aka Topics:
- Fighting spam and fraud: it doesn’t.
- Showing relevant ads and content: except that most people despise advertisement, and the better informed ones avoid targetted advertisement even further.
- Measuring digital advertisement: besides Google itself, nobody cares that much about this shit. And Google only cares about it to min-max profits.
- Strengthening cross-site privacy boundaries: I’m really sceptic on this.
- Limiting covert tracking: while overt tracking goes rampant, right?
“Topics is a response to pushback against Google’s proposed Federated Learning of Cohorts (FLoC), which we called ‘a terrible idea’ because it gave Google even more control over advertising in its browser while not truly protecting user privacy,” said Thorin Klosowski, EFF security and privacy activist, in a web essay.
I’m preaching to the choir given the comm, but that’s why one doesn’t trust Google. It forces it until it gets things going its way.
I wonder how much this means that people shouldn’t touch even Chromium with a 3m pole.
Sorry Chrome, I’ve given my heart to Foxkeh
