Recent searches
Search options
“Google’s Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good … Yes, we use data to make products more helpful for everyone. But we also protect your information.” – NYTimes “The Privacy Project”
1. Fuck you, Sundar
2. Fuck you, NYTimes, and fuck your “privacy project”, you whitewashing muppets
A. Privacy is not a good, it is a human right
B. Google is a surveillance capitalist; its business model is diametrically opposed to respecting privacy
C. Google protects *their* information, not yours, because that’s what your information becomes once they have it: their asset
Sundar Pichai trying to paint himself as the champion of the poor man’s privacy isn’t even the main problem here: a Big Tobacco CEO would love to be seen as the champion of your health and ditto a Big Oil CEO as defender of the environment.
It’s only natural, they’re apex predators with billions of dollar-shaped reasons to lie to you. The real problem is muppets like The New York Times giving them a platform and whitewashing they with their “privacy projects”.
Next on The New York Times: The Environment Project – Exxon Mobile CEO on Exxon’s Green New Deal and The Healthcare Project – Philip Morris CEO: “Our cigarettes save lives.”
@aral believing DuckDuckGo, they could easily make money without spying.
https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-revenue-model/
But don't expect that to happen. Like our banks, who want to sell transaction data, they cannot be satisfied with just serving the public right. They'd rather build little empires, and feel good about being a job creator.
@jasper@mastodon.nl@aral Founders have to deal with investors, etcetera. So if you're successful, you might want to avoid that by expanding our initial company.
I mean, it is fine if people don't want to do just found one company, and then keep doing the one thing. Any alternative has to consider what options it creates here.