[clatan]

They do use that information, it's not necessarilly sketchy. They run analytics just like everyone else. In fact, one could argue Google's huge push for https was primarily motivated to deprive service providers of valuable data that Google has anyway.

[ryukafalz]

>They do use that information, it's not necessarilly sketchy. They run analytics just like everyone else.

First of all, I think the extent of the data collection that many companies engage in is sketchy.

That aside, if a website runs analytics that you don't like, you can stop using it. There are usually alternatives, if you're willing to give up some convenience. But if your local ISPs are monitoring you, not using the internet isn't really an option these days.

I really wish we didn't have to treat our ISPs as adversaries in that regard, but we've been at that point for a while.

[tannhaeuser]

Exactly; it's just the same old story with Google. We all know ISPs and Telcos are greedy af, but when Google is getting into providing DNS, they do it to close a loophole (from their point of view) where web visit sensor data is going to someone else; they really think they own the Internet. In this particular case, even if Google succeeds in establishing DoH via Chrome (and, sadly, also Firefox), ISPs will still get to see your IP data; they could try reverse-DNS lookup to get back domains, but this is much less targetted ever since HTTP/1.1 shared hosting. At the same time, Google is also engaged in AMP such that requests for many sites go to a single IP, with the actual requested site SSL-encrypted. What will happen next is that Google will, via piecemeal extension of HTTP/3, fuckup TCP/IP even more.

I hope somebody in regulation will finally stop Google and others to monopolize the web.

[kelnos]

I consider most analytics use cases to be sketchy. To me, the onus should be on the company to prove to me that their use is not sketchy.