[jtrip]

Not the OP, but the central idea is 'Information is Power'. It has existed for a long time in the books of all the powerful people and is essential to the very fabric of our universe (not hyperbole; information, entropy, debates about conservation/loss of information instead of mass inside blackholes [0] and such).

Once you have all the relevant information about someone or some system, then you essentially control them. If I know everything about you, how can you ever hope to have an even footing with me?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

[nl]

This is a good point. But Google's services make a person a more powerful agent compared to others: one can navigate quicker, find better services and access information faster and more accurately.

So yes, there is a trade off. But humans have been making trade-offs forever - civilization itself is one big compromise. Domesticating cattle meant human could not move as quickly and as fast as they used to. But they lived better and longer.

I don't see why information trade-offs are somehow different.

[the_other]

> This is a good point. But Google's services make a person a more powerful agent compared to others: one can navigate quicker, find better services and access information faster and more accurately.

Google could provide most of those services without tracking individuals.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> I don't see why information trade-offs are somehow different.

Because it is about power. We, as humanity, have plenty of experience with power trade-offs. We have so much experience with it that we have names for structures with centralized power, like "monarchy" and "dictatorship". Our experience with those trade-offs hasn't been particularly good. Maybe we should learn something from that.