|
|
|
|
|
|
by CharlesW
992 days ago
|
|
|
> …your response is that paying for things makes you feel safe. That's an interesting interpretation, but what I actually did was point out the elephant in the room — that Apple's business model is completely different than Google's, and so painting them both with the same reductive label doesn't make sense. Given two business models — one based on monetizing your data and behavior, the other based on accepting money for goods and services — which would you say is more pro-privacy? |
|
|
Whichever one you trust with less data. Neither of them can be held to a bar of inscrutability because both of them manufacture surveillance devices. You can't even deny it.
> Apple's business model is completely different than Google's, and so painting them both with the same reductive label doesn't make sense.
Their business model has nothing to do with the topic of privacy-washing though. That's why I responded to you in the first place; your assertion that these revenue models matter is nonsense. It's a quaint fairy-tale you tell yourself to justify storing sensitive data with them. I'm not going to jostle you awake, but I am going to remind you that they're no more transparent in their approach than Google. If anything, your original comment highlights just how effective the duopoly is; both of these adtech companies are being treated like Marvel vs DC instead of Moloch vs Satan.
So... as far as privacywashing is concerned, I'd trust neither of them. They're both proven snakes who lie about their opaque infrastructure and do little to contribute to society's collective safety, online or individually.