Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #17797 > unrolled thread

[Link Posting] Here's The Shocking Reality Of Completely Blocking Google From Your Life

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  [Link Posting] Here's The Shocking Reality Of Completely Blocking Google From Your Life Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-04-10 19:36 +0000
    Re: [Link Posting] Here's The Shocking Reality Of Completely Blocking Google From Your Life Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-04-11 03:23 +0000
      Re: [Link Posting] Here's The Shocking Reality Of Completely Blocking Google From Your Life Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> - 2019-04-11 10:39 +0200
        Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely blocking Google from your life Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2019-04-11 14:45 +0000
          Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely blocking Google from your life kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2019-04-11 19:38 -0400
            Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely blocking Google from your life Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> - 2019-04-15 20:46 +0200
              Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely blocking Google from your life Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> - 2019-04-15 20:50 +0200
              Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely blocking Google from your life Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-04-16 02:20 +0000
                Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely blocking Google from your life Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> - 2019-04-16 11:17 +0200
                  Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely blocking Google from your life Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-04-16 23:48 +0000
                Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely  blocking Google from your life Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-04-16 17:51 -0300
                  Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely blocking Google from your life Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> - 2019-04-17 00:06 +0200
                    Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely blocking Google from your life not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-04-16 23:03 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] Here's The Shocking Reality Of Completely Blocking Google From Your Life Batchman <batchman@dosville.foo> - 2019-04-11 21:05 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] Here's The Shocking Reality Of Completely Blocking Google From Your Life Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-04-12 01:30 +0000
      Re: [Link Posting] Here's The Shocking Reality Of Completely Blocking Google From Your Life not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-04-12 23:56 +0000

#17797 — [Link Posting] Here's The Shocking Reality Of Completely Blocking Google From Your Life

      ####################################################################
      # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
      # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
      ####################################################################

<URL:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/04/09/heres-the-sh
ocking-reality-of-completely-blocking-google-from-your-life/>

The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>
>  How deeply does Google penetrate both your internet life and your real
>  life? Maybe you've been considering ditching Google search for Duck Duck
>  Go, or trading in Google Chrome for a privacy-respecting browser like
>  Brave? Perhaps you want to separate yourself from Gmail and Google Maps?
>  Those are all worthwhile endeavors, but what happens when you actively
>  block all of your devices from even pinging Google's servers?
>  Apparently, nothing short of nightmare fuel.
>
>  Gizmodo's Kashmir Hill recently accepted a monumental challenge:
>  blocking tech giants from her everyday life due to privacy concerns and
>  sheer curiosity. But she took the challenge to extreme lengths to
>  demonstrate just how pervasive these companies are beyond just the apps
>  they provide.
>
>  How? By actively blocking all communication with Google's 8,699,648 (!)
>  IP addresses on every device she owned. Not merely finding alternatives
>  for the various Google apps we all rely on, but preventing those devices
>  from pinging a single Google server.
>
>  The results were both calamitous and eye-opening.
>
>  ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17799

On 2019-04-10, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
><URL:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/04/09/heres-the-shocking-reality-of-completely-blocking-google-from-your-life/>

I've found it pretty easy to keep Google out of my life, but I don't
have a smartphone, don't use Uber or Lyft, don't use Spotify, don't use
Airbnb, don't use Chrome, and rarely browse major commercial sites. I
do use uMatrix to block Google analytics and other destinations I don't
want contacted.  If a site won't work that way I don't bother with it.
All local purchases are made in cash, so no Google involved there either.

There's probably some stuff slipping out (it's like playing whack-a-mole
after all) but it's safe to say that Google is much less involved in my
life than it is for the author of that article.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17800

W dniu 2019-04-11 o 05:23, Roger Blake pisze:
> On 2019-04-10, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> <URL:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/04/09/heres-the-shocking-reality-of-completely-blocking-google-from-your-life/>
> 
> I've found it pretty easy to keep Google out of my life, but I don't
> have a smartphone, don't use Uber or Lyft, don't use Spotify, don't use
> Airbnb, don't use Chrome, and rarely browse major commercial sites. I
> do use uMatrix to block Google analytics and other destinations I don't
> want contacted.  If a site won't work that way I don't bother with it.
> All local purchases are made in cash, so no Google involved there either.
> 
> There's probably some stuff slipping out (it's like playing whack-a-mole
> after all) but it's safe to say that Google is much less involved in my
> life than it is for the author of that article.
> 

The reality is that you CANNOT get rid of Google. It is the best 
solution to search the web. Something that has been indexing the 
Internet for so long will always be the best solution. Indexing 
obviously takes time so to be honest - at least in the web searching 
field, there will never be any competition for Google.

Bing.com etc. is a total rubbish, unusable for users who demand a 
reliable list of indexed sites.

I've been using solutions from other companies and they are terrible.

It's a pity though that you cannot secure your privacy because you are 
literally forced to use it like AltaVista back in the 90s.

-- 
Filip454

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17802

>>>>> Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

 > The reality is that you CANNOT get rid of Google.  It is the best
 > solution to search the web.  Something that has been indexing the
 > Internet for so long will always be the best solution.  Indexing
 > obviously takes time so to be honest - at least in the web searching
 > field, there will never be any competition for Google.

	Given your eagerness to advocate in favor of a single best Web
	search solution, could you please also advise me on the topic
	of best OS, best hardware platform, best movie, best car, best
	city, best screwdriver, and a single best plug to fit every hole?

	Thanks in advance.

 > Bing.com etc. is a total rubbish, unusable for users who demand a
 > reliable list of indexed sites.

	That actually was somewhat of a problem with Google for me: you
	use some search terms to get a particular result, you give the
	link to your pal across the globe, and he then gets a whole
	different results page for these same terms.

	The obvious degenerate case where this happens is when you
	search for something along the lines of "where can I watch XXX
	movie tonight?" (with XXX being a placeholder, of course), but
	this happens in other cases as well.

 > I've been using solutions from other companies and they are terrible.

	It's been rather the opposite for me so far.

[...]

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  http://am-1.org/~ivan/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17804

Ivan Shmakov  <ivan@siamics.net> wrote:
>	Given your eagerness to advocate in favor of a single best Web
>	search solution, could you please also advise me on the topic
>	of best OS, best hardware platform, best movie, best car, best
>	city, best screwdriver, and a single best plug to fit every hole?

The best fruit is the tomato because it is the fruit that is also the
vegetable.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17816

W dniu 2019-04-12 o 01:38, Scott Dorsey pisze:
> Ivan Shmakov  <ivan@siamics.net> wrote:
>> 	Given your eagerness to advocate in favor of a single best Web
>> 	search solution, could you please also advise me on the topic
>> 	of best OS, best hardware platform, best movie, best car, best
>> 	city, best screwdriver, and a single best plug to fit every hole?
> 
> The best fruit is the tomato because it is the fruit that is also the
> vegetable.
> --scott
> 

That definitely does not apply to search engines.

The fact is: the engine which has the biggest amount of indexed websites 
will always win.

Who has the biggest amount of indexed websites? Google.

Maybe the battle won't stop but the amount of indexed websites is highly 
connected with the "lifetime" of each engine.

the older the engine = the bigger the index

It's an "unskippable" problem for other companies.

It is just impossible to index more websites than the older engine.

And I AM NOT DEFENDING GOOGLE AT ALL. I hate companies who spy on people 
etc. I've just stated the fact: we cannot get rid of Google - no matter 
if you want it or not.

Of course you can change your engine to, for example, DuckDuckGo but it 
won't be more reliable than Google. Numbers are numbers. Numbers don't lie.

-- 
Filip454
[filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17817

W dniu 2019-04-15 o 20:46, Filip454 pisze:
> W dniu 2019-04-12 o 01:38, Scott Dorsey pisze:
>> Ivan Shmakov  <ivan@siamics.net> wrote:
>>>     Given your eagerness to advocate in favor of a single best Web
>>>     search solution, could you please also advise me on the topic
>>>     of best OS, best hardware platform, best movie, best car, best
>>>     city, best screwdriver, and a single best plug to fit every hole?
>>
>> The best fruit is the tomato because it is the fruit that is also the
>> vegetable.
>> --scott
>>
> 
> That definitely does not apply to search engines.
> 
> The fact is: the engine which has the biggest amount of indexed websites 
> will always win.
> 
> Who has the biggest amount of indexed websites? Google.
> 
> Maybe the battle won't stop but the amount of indexed websites is highly 
> connected with the "lifetime" of each engine.
> 
> the older the engine = the bigger the index
> 
> It's an "unskippable" problem for other companies.
> 
> It is just impossible to index more websites than the older engine.
> 
> And I AM NOT DEFENDING GOOGLE AT ALL. I hate companies who spy on people 
> etc. I've just stated the fact: we cannot get rid of Google - no matter 
> if you want it or not.
> 
> Of course you can change your engine to, for example, DuckDuckGo but it 
> won't be more reliable than Google. Numbers are numbers. Numbers don't lie.
> 

PS: And of course - in my messages, I do not take the topic of spying 
under consideration. I wrote solely about the performance of the engine.

-- 
Filip454
[filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17820

On 2019-04-15, Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I AM NOT DEFENDING GOOGLE AT ALL. I hate companies who spy on people 
> etc. I've just stated the fact: we cannot get rid of Google - no matter 
> if you want it or not.

We can on an individual basis. I really don't care if Google is
technically superior. As far as I am concerned it's not worth using
due to the spying aspects, and the alternatives are good enough for
my purposes.

It's the same kind of decision I made regarding not having a smartphone.
Of course one can do all kinds of nifty things with one.  None of those
things are worth putting up with the tracking and surveillance aspects
as far as I'm concerned, so I simply do without while laughing at the people
so addicted to the damned things that they can't even drive or sit down
to a meal without poking at them.

A smartphone is not a necessity of life. Neither is Google.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17822

W dniu 2019-04-16 o 04:20, Roger Blake pisze:
> On 2019-04-15, Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And I AM NOT DEFENDING GOOGLE AT ALL. I hate companies who spy on people
>> etc. I've just stated the fact: we cannot get rid of Google - no matter
>> if you want it or not.
> 
> We can on an individual basis. I really don't care if Google is
> technically superior. As far as I am concerned it's not worth using
> due to the spying aspects, and the alternatives are good enough for
> my purposes.
> 
> It's the same kind of decision I made regarding not having a smartphone.
> Of course one can do all kinds of nifty things with one.  None of those
> things are worth putting up with the tracking and surveillance aspects
> as far as I'm concerned, so I simply do without while laughing at the people
> so addicted to the damned things that they can't even drive or sit down
> to a meal without poking at them.
> 
> A smartphone is not a necessity of life. Neither is Google.
> 

Of course, but search engines and smartphones can help you write your MA 
thesis, your curriculum vitae, your PhD dissertation, etc. :)

Without search engines, the whole process would take much longer.

Smartphone has definitely helped me numerous times, especially when I 
was supposed to make some quick corrections of my documents at the last 
minute. Printing from your smartphone is another thing that can save you 
trouble.

-- 
Filip454
[filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17830

On 2019-04-16, Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, but search engines and smartphones can help you write your MA 
> thesis, your curriculum vitae, your PhD dissertation, etc. :)

Funny how those things managed to get done for so many years
without search engines and smartphones. :) It may have taken
longer but it got done.

> Smartphone has definitely helped me numerous times, especially when I 
> was supposed to make some quick corrections of my documents at the last 
> minute. Printing from your smartphone is another thing that can save you 
> trouble.

Whatever floats your boat. As I've said, it's not worth it to me. 

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17825 — Re: [Link Posting] here's the shocking reality of completely blocking Google from your life

Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes:

> We can on an individual basis. I really don't care if Google is
> technically superior. As far as I am concerned it's not worth using
> due to the spying aspects, and the alternatives are good enough for
> my purposes.
> 
> It's the same kind of decision I made regarding not having a smartphone.
> Of course one can do all kinds of nifty things with one.  None of those
> things are worth putting up with the tracking and surveillance aspects
> as far as I'm concerned, so I simply do without while laughing at the people
> so addicted to the damned things that they can't even drive or sit down
> to a meal without poking at them.

This is actually a deeper matter that it at first glance appears to
be.  What things bear secondary or covert costs, what things offend
your dignity, what things constitute (or just imply) your
collaboration in something evil -- that you could get along without?
Can you just not have/use/do those things despite the costs, losses or
risks attendant on foregoing them?


> A smartphone is not a necessity of life. Neither is Google.

Nor is electricity, unless you're dependent on high-tech life support
of one kind or another.  Other examples and subsequent debate are left
as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17826

W dniu 2019-04-16 o 22:51, Mike Spencer pisze:
> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes:
> 
>> We can on an individual basis. I really don't care if Google is
>> technically superior. As far as I am concerned it's not worth using
>> due to the spying aspects, and the alternatives are good enough for
>> my purposes.
>>
>> It's the same kind of decision I made regarding not having a smartphone.
>> Of course one can do all kinds of nifty things with one.  None of those
>> things are worth putting up with the tracking and surveillance aspects
>> as far as I'm concerned, so I simply do without while laughing at the people
>> so addicted to the damned things that they can't even drive or sit down
>> to a meal without poking at them.
> 
> This is actually a deeper matter that it at first glance appears to
> be.  What things bear secondary or covert costs, what things offend
> your dignity, what things constitute (or just imply) your
> collaboration in something evil -- that you could get along without?
> Can you just not have/use/do those things despite the costs, losses or
> risks attendant on foregoing them?
> 
> 
>> A smartphone is not a necessity of life. Neither is Google.
> 
> Nor is electricity, unless you're dependent on high-tech life support
> of one kind or another.  Other examples and subsequent debate are left
> as an exercise for the reader. ;-)
> 

Exactly.

I think that people should put more emphasis on the process of clearly 
stating to those companies that nobody wants to be spied on, than on the 
process of leaving certain search engines.

To be honest - if you want to stop all the spying, you cannot, unless 
you change people who work at Google, Microsoft, etc. (all of them) to AI.

Human is nearly the root of all evil in this world - human race will 
always have some dirty thoughts inside.

We are the problem or, to be specific: people with dirty and confused 
minds who work at those companies, selling our data to others. SO - it 
is about the money AND the human race :)

-- 
Filip454
[filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17829

Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote:
> W dniu 2019-04-16 o?22:51, Mike Spencer pisze:
>> 
>>> A smartphone is not a necessity of life. Neither is Google.
>> 
>> Nor is electricity, unless you're dependent on high-tech life support
>> of one kind or another.  Other examples and subsequent debate are left
>> as an exercise for the reader. ;-)
>> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> I think that people should put more emphasis on the process of clearly 
> stating to those companies that nobody wants to be spied on, than on the 
> process of leaving certain search engines.

You're suggesting that everyone emails the companies explaining
that they don't like what they're doing, then keeps on using them
regardless? "Dear Google, I do not like your business model. However
I like all the services that you provide so much that I'm willing to
continue supporting it until you come up with a new one." - powerful
stuff.

> To be honest - if you want to stop all the spying, you cannot, unless 
> you change people who work at Google, Microsoft, etc. (all of them) to AI.

So they then loose their revenue, and "new-Google", "new-Microsoft",
"new-etc.", start up and overtake them by exploiting their users the
same way the the old companies used to. In fact AI designed to run a
business profitably would have failed miserably if it killed off its
company's core business.

The only way that the public can force the hand of a business which
is operating legally, is by choosing not to use them, or at least
believably threatening such (the anti-Facebook campaigns being
examples of threats that weren't believable).

In the case of Google, this still doesn't amount to nearly enough
people to hurt them. However it does make alternative services
like DuckDuckGo viable, and if they keep growing over time then maybe
one day they will be a threat to Google and cause them to change
their ways (maybe). Same with M$ Vs Linux etc.

> Human is nearly the root of all evil in this world - human race will 
> always have some dirty thoughts inside.
> 
> We are the problem or, to be specific: people with dirty and confused 
> minds who work at those companies, selling our data to others. SO - it 
> is about the money AND the human race :)

No it's user's dirty minds scheming to save time and increase
performance by using the services of these evil companies.

But everyone draws their own line as to what's "evil", and how
important that is compared with their own personal advantage.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17803

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:39:36 +0200, Filip454 wrote:

[SNIP]

> Bing.com etc. is a total rubbish, unusable for users who demand a 
> reliable list of indexed sites.

Startpage pays Google to perform its searches but doesn't track you.

https://www.startpage.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17805

On 2019-04-11, Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote:
The reality is that you CANNOT get rid of Google.

I have. Perhaps not 100%, but close to it.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17806

Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2019-04-10, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>><URL:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/04/09/heres-the-shocking-reality-of-completely-blocking-google-from-your-life/>
> 
> I've found it pretty easy to keep Google out of my life, but I don't
> have a smartphone, don't use Uber or Lyft, don't use Spotify, don't use
> Airbnb, don't use Chrome, and rarely browse major commercial sites. I
> do use uMatrix to block Google analytics and other destinations I don't
> want contacted.  If a site won't work that way I don't bother with it.
> All local purchases are made in cash, so no Google involved there either.

Same here, except using NoScript for the blocking. The most common
reason for me to temporarily allow a Google script is to get one of
their Captcha confirmations to run, rather frustrating because
there's deliberately no way to get around using it if you want to
use the site. It also tends to require a lot of different Google
scripts to be allowed before it will work.

At least the picture squares thing seems to let me in eventually
nowadays, there was a time when it would endlessly keep coming up
with new pictures to click on and never uncover the "verify"
button. Made me feel like a right fool sitting there feeding
Google's AI continuously with no reward.

The other main cause for letting Google in is when a website requires
a Google script to run in order for its search function to work.

> There's probably some stuff slipping out (it's like playing whack-a-mole
> after all) but it's safe to say that Google is much less involved in my
> life than it is for the author of that article.

Her article on blocking Amazon was interesting as well, partly for
how widespread Amazon Web Services has become, though for me mainly
for simply pointing out how different a life some people are living
now. All the things that she can't live without are ones that I've
never used - I don't even have an Amazon account (until a year or two
ago I thought they were still mainly just into books (AWS aside)).

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web