The choice is so easy. Mozilla's main problem is manufactured outrage over some risky/mediocre product management, some bugs (never shipped a bug before?). Google's main problem is trying to remake the entire internet in their image, end-to-end, from optic nerve to server silicon. I'll choose the lesser of two evils, please.
I very much doubt that you know all the parties to whom you are constantly being sold by Google. You do realize that Google does not benefit from keeping your info to themselves, right?
>You do realize that Google does not benefit from keeping your info to themselves, right?
Of course they do. That's literally their business model, to use that data to serve more relevant ads. If they gave it to third parties then they would lose their biggest competitive advantage.
>We do not sell your personal information to anyone.
That's a technically true and practically meaningless statement. No lying required.
Google's business model relies on giving advertisers a way to target you based on that data and to track you to other activities down the line. Advertisers might never see the data itself, but all that means is Google is selling the product that lets advertisers do the things they were going to do if they actually did have the data, just without being able to see your specific info.
Whether you consider that equivalent to selling your data is a separate question. You'll find a lot of disagreement here about it.
> Whether you consider that equivalent to selling your data is a separate question. You'll find a lot of disagreement here about it.
I can't remember previously seeing an argument that this is equivalent. Sharing one quality (in this case the ability to target users on Google's platform based on data Google has collected) does not make two things equivalent. Data passing between hands is obviously different than one entity providing an interface for another entity to utilise data without having it themselves, as in the former case you are now trusting both entities to safely store it which increases the chance of public disclosure (or private exposure that results in negative personal effects such as embarrassment and/or blackmail).
Who gives a shit about Pocket? Fucking hell it;s just a bookmarking program. Don't like it? You don't have to use it! It doesn't do anything at all unless you use it.
Wow. Such a good argument. I want a browser. Not something that tries to use my data to "recommend" (read advertise" news content to me (as Pocket does with it's mails). I am not sure who pays what for these recommendations, but when I sign up for a browser, I do not want a content delivery scheme being shoved down my throat.
Esp. from a company that tries to brainwash me with this "we care for your privacy" shit. While still using my data.
If they cared for my privacy, they would provide a browser that does not tell FF/Mozilla anything about me other then that I did download it via their original dl-link.
All else the talk about respecting my privacy, my data and stuff like this is nothing more. Just talk. And I do not like being bullshitted.
And that is the difference to Chrome: I know - because Google tells me - My data is being used. I know what I am in for. This is honesty - even if the end result is that I am the product. At least I am it knowingly.
I could go on.
My problem is that every time I wanted to return to ff, Mozilla f...ed Up again.
I feel like I am between a rock and a hard place with ff and Chrome.