It's nice that this article highlights the fact that people are browser finger printed and it's something most people don't even know exists (even guys on this very forum for that matter). Avoiding browser finger printing is way more complex than using some incognito/private mode which isn't actually private nowadays.
Avoiding browser finger printing is tricky. If you block everything, so using a VPN, Firefox + a hardened about
:config setup all with script blockers, ad blockers, canvas blockers, local CDN emulation add-ons, etc... You get lumped into the 1% of users that are knowledgeable enough to know about such tracking techniques and how to block them, so that in itself identifies you.
Originally Posted by Mrzev
SO you would rather have search results based on popularity and not based around your profile? When i google beaglebone, i don't want to see a beagle holding a bone. Id rather see the device. Its like tailored ads. If I am going to see an advertisement, id rather see Create an account on Amazon AWS today and get 10$ credit.... and not some perfume.
I had this conversation with a co-worker the other day. The more data you accumulate the more you can do with it. Like Google sending you an email because it saw you booked a flight to another country, and notified you that your Passport will expire soon. Scary, but at the same time, your not Bob... your ID:1239147957987, and ID:1239147957987's passport is about to expire. The problem is that it can be abused. The smaller the company, the more likely it will be abused (IMO). Google knows by gps info from my phone, where i work, the hours I work, and where I live. If criminals had that information, there would probably be a lot more home theft.
That was a slightly positive spin on what that targeted marketing can do, here's another one though... That targeted marketing is basically exactly what happened in the 2016 election on both sides. Both camps basically got reflected back content that they agreed with on all the popular social platforms and you're left with the stupid result we have today. Basically one side is being fed hardcore antifa SJW'ness and the other that everything is fake news, MSM is lying all the time, everything is fake, pizzagate, reptilian conspiracy stuff, etc...
Nowadays with the information that's available you'd have to be naive to trust big corporations.
I see this all the time though, it's like a mental defense mechanism. People purposefully put the blinders on, place blind trust in the big corps of the digital world even though there's plenty of evidence to the contrary because they can't handle the alternative in their mind; they don't wanna stop using said services or come to terms with the fact that they might have to give something up or not use something.
Here's your trustworthy big corps in recent news...
AP news unveiled that Google track's peoples locations even after toggling off the location button.
Google Home Handed Over Data More Than 300 Times To Governments
Facebook's Internal Emails Suggest Calls & Text Data Was Collected Without Consent
Originally Posted by Mrzev
Ads are required for free content unless they beg for donations. Wikipedia doesn't have ads, but at the same time, i get a massive message at the top asking for donations. It's the same thing to me. I could pirate movies for convenience and to save money, but that's morally wrong. Disabling ads on a site is stealing from them too IMO. I really appreciate when free services offer paid subscriptions to remove ads. Twitch, Youtube, Spotify, even OCN does this.
Real internet sites don't use ads or make revenue their primary model.
The entire concept of the internet originally revolved around it being a free medium for sharing and spreading knowledge/an educational platform. The OG's of the internet still live by that principle, this is why you have the foss community which is the really the "real" internet. The over commercialization on the net, eCommerce, web 2.0 as you see it now or "the internet" for most people, mainly evolving around the big four players (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft) is actually a bastardization of what the internet was supposed to be about if you listen to what the original creators/fathers of the internet say about what their intentions were.
Originally Posted by Mrzev
Larger companies have a lot more resources dedicated to security and policies. Do you think it would be easier to hack into googles servers to get my search data, or to hack into duckduckgo to get that same info? I also feel that DuckDuckGo also is more likley to sell out to some other company that you may not like. You also dont have as many people keeping an eye on DuckDuckGo as you do google. Google is active enough to realize hey, someone hacked our security, while DuckDuckGo might not. I sure wouldn't know if someone hacked into my systems and pulled data out. Your not wrong tho. They both have their ups and downs.
This thing about large companies somehow means more secure again...
The Linux foundation, the dev team for Ubuntu and all the other distros is basically a bunch of hobbyists that contribute spare time to stuff yet they are continuously out and ahead of big corporations like Microsoft when it comes to releasing security updates for vulnerabilities, etc.
Small independent email companies have been documented resisting government warrants for information while these awesome big companies you speak of simply hand over the information voluntarily.