Google in recent years has felt like the Lyft to Facebook's Uber. It does a lot of the same evil things, but uses just enough restraint and decorum to let Facebook remain the one in the hot-seat. It avoids scrutiny by simply being less icky.
> Google in recent years has felt like the Lyft to Facebook's Uber. It does a lot of the same evil things, but uses just enough restraint and decorum to let Facebook remain the one in the hot-seat. It avoids scrutiny by simply being less icky.
Many of Google's services have a great deal more basic utility than anything Facebook provides. I think that also provides additional cover for them.
When Facebook pushes for more data collection, it almost always looks way more self-serving than when Google does.
Google also tends to be much more up-front about data collection, and seems to have better practices regarding keeping it from third parties.
That still doesn't make it good, but it helps. Whereas Facebook literally created a shell-company to mislead both users and Apple (who was trying to act in the users' best interest).
Stop spreading fake news. The app was literally called Facebook Research - I know you want to believe that there was a lot of hiding going on but it is really not the case.
Go visit https://play.google.com/store/search?q=facebook&c=apps&hl=fr . Are you able to tell which apps are supported by facebook and which are not ? For example, "onavo protect" is about 80th in the list, who in their right mind would think "yup, this one totally owned by facebook".
I wouldn't ever think that anything called "Facebook XXX" is a facebook app, even more so if it's clearly sold by a shell company. It was hiding, even though it was ironically in plain sight.
I know you want to believe the worst about Facebook. But it doesn't change the fact that the app was literally called Facebook Research and when you downloaded it had Facebook logos all over it - to make it clear that the app was from Facebook. Dive deeper, get data and then make arguments vs. having your feelings take the better of you.
Also, re: "Many of Google's services have a great deal more basic utility than anything Facebook provides"
I would so gladly pay money for a version of Google's services which was 1) client-side encrypted, 2) not mined whatsoever by Google - even the metadata, and 3) ad-free. They really do make useful, high-quality software, but I refuse to give them my life's data. I switched to using Apple for everything cloud-related, and while Apple Maps isn't as bad as people think, and Safari, Notes, and Calendar get the job done, they're also not as good as Google's equivalents.
The thing about Gsuite is that they're paid versions of ad-based apps. I'm skeptical that Google doesn't still "mine the hell" out of the activity in them, at most it just suppresses the ad display in certain places. To do otherwise would have Google 1) spending money on privacy features that would 2) reduce tracking-based revenue. Market-logic says they'd decide to continue to track their paid users.
If Apple had to punish Google the same way Google punishes it's users it would have to ban ALL Google apps permanently for lifetime and also suspend all related accounts permanently and then shutdown it's email,youtube and adsense account with money remaining in the account.
Finally Apple has to stop responding to requests for ban reason and send out automated emails that their decision is final and binding.
Also, a company that offers a wide variety of services and collects your personal data to distribute internally among those services seems to get a pass. Compared to companies that are more vertical and benefit by selling your data rather than using it themselves. Even though you've lost your privacy either way.
Can you elaborate more on Lyft? Been using it instead of Uber due to their issues but I wasn't aware of problems with them. Not entirely shocked, however.
They have the same business model, same opposition to regulation, same generally bad arrangement with employees (sorry, "contractors") and riders alike. When my city (Austin, Texas) passed a law in 2017 requiring fingerprints and government background checks for ride-share drivers, Uber and Lyft left the city in protest (other ride-share startups sprung up in their wake and did just fine, so the law clearly wasn't a great burden on businesses).
However they did not, as far as we know, track government officials' locations to evade investigation (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/technology/uber-federal-i...). It seems you have to have a man-child as your founder and CEO before you'll do something that brazen.
I think that's just the HN bubble? HN threads always seem weirdly pro-Google and anti-Facebook compared to my real-life friends' views (even when some of those friends work at Google).
It used to be like that, I think. In the last year or so, the threads became both anti-Google and anti-Facebook, and to much stronger degree than regular people (including techies).
I.e. here people at least notice and care. Every other community I've been a part of - at workplace, at hackerspace, at home - everyone's just "so they do spy on you, who cares ¯\_(ツ)_/¯".
Yes, I think this comes with the tech side of this platform. Many developers still dream of a job at google and would take it in an instance. You would need a lot of mental gymnastics to call out googles evil practices regarding privacy at the same time.
In my non-tech circle of friends both are equally regarded to as evil spying megacorps.
