How Google pioneered the "surveillance capitalism" business model

[KBD]

The problem with Google is that there are not many good alternatives to their products. You have to jump into another ecosystem like Apple or Microsoft to get even a fraction of services Google offers, mostly for free. I've tried alternatives, and besides Linux as a major OS it's hard. You accept a ton of inconvenience and loss of many useful services. Nothing compares to gmail and I have Outlook, Protonmail, and Tutanota. Same with Calendar, Maps, Keep, Voice, Youtube, Photos, and Search. I like Duck Duck Go, but it's just not there yet. I use Startpage, but it's still Google without the targeted ads and you can be sure Google knows its you. I have everything I can turn off turned off on privacy settings, but the only way this ends well for users is for Google to be broken up to stop its mass surveillance and collection of data.

[Adrian]

Nothing compares to gmail and I have Outlook, Protonmail, and Tutanota. Same with Calendar, Maps, Keep, Voice, Youtube, Photos, and Search. I like Duck Duck Go, but it's just not there yet.

That's one problem, but even if you can get yourself to live with inferior products there are still the issue that you'll spread the info to MORE companies instead of less. Why would one trust more companies with your data than Google?

the only way this ends well for users is for Google to be broken up to stop its mass surveillance and collection of data.

Same question, now you'll have more companies tracking your information. Some of those companies might not even have Google's high security standards, will be less monitored by public and legislators so they will probably feel free to be more cavalier with your info. Some might be acquired by bad actors, having a big company like Alphabet/Google that won't go bankrupt anytime soon actually offer a protection to users.

[malspa]

Ugh. Screwed either way.

[Adrian]

Ugh. Screwed either way.

I don't see it that way, I got a LOT of benefits from using Google products and nothing bad came out of it. "Potential" harm means pretty much nothing.

[KBD]

That's one problem, but even if you can get yourself to live with inferior products there are still the issue that you'll spread the info to MORE companies instead of less. Why would one trust more companies with your data than Google?


Same question, now you'll have more companies tracking your information. Some of those companies might not even have Google's high security standards, will be less monitored by public and legislators so they will probably feel free to be more cavalier with your info. Some might be acquired by bad actors, having a big company like Alphabet/Google that won't go bankrupt anytime soon actually offer a protection to users.

To my thinking I'd rather have my info split along several smaller companies than one giant company with tons of info on everything I do and everything about me on the web--that's just too much power and control.
I think breaking Google up into several companies would also lessen the influence of just a few individuals to push ideas/agendas on its users. Search in particular needs split off, and youtube.

[malspa]

Wow. Excellent points both ways. I'm heading back to the porch!

[Adrian]

Oh, one more argument I forgot to mention, big companies like Google and Apple have successfully fought government subpoenas, a bigger company has more interest and more leverage (money and lawyers) to do that, what do you think a small company would do when government comes knocking at their door?

[KBD]

Oh, one more argument I forgot to mention, big companies like Google and Apple have successfully fought government subpoenas, a bigger company has more interest and more leverage (money and lawyers) to do that, what do you think a small company would do when government comes knocking at their door?

That could be good or bad.
If the government is just being jerks and pushing tech companies around--bigger is better.
However, if the government is trying to get a company to obey proper law enforcement--smaller is better.

[Eadwine Rose]

Smaller indeed is better for them. Easy prey.

[danielson]

@Adrian - no Youtube?