“Google’s Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good … Yes, we use data to make products more helpful for everyone. But we also protect your information.” – NYTimes “The Privacy Project”

1. Fuck you, Sundar
2. Fuck you, NYTimes, and fuck your “privacy project”, you whitewashing muppets

A. Privacy is not a good, it is a human right

B. Google is a surveillance capitalist; its business model is diametrically opposed to respecting privacy

C. Google protects *their* information, not yours, because that’s what your information becomes once they have it: their asset

Sundar Pichai trying to paint himself as the champion of the poor man’s privacy isn’t even the main problem here: a Big Tobacco CEO would love to be seen as the champion of your health and ditto a Big Oil CEO as defender of the environment.

It’s only natural, they’re apex predators with billions of dollar-shaped reasons to lie to you. The real problem is muppets like The New York Times giving them a platform and whitewashing they with their “privacy projects”.

Next on The New York Times: The Environment Project – Exxon Mobile CEO on Exxon’s Green New Deal and The Healthcare Project – Philip Morris CEO: “Our cigarettes save lives.”

@aral believing DuckDuckGo, they could easily make money without spying.

But don't expect that to happen. Like our banks, who want to sell transaction data, they cannot be satisfied with just serving the public right. They'd rather build little empires, and feel good about being a job creator.

@aral Founders have to deal with investors, etcetera. So if you're successful, you might want to avoid that by expanding our initial company.

I mean, it is fine if people don't want to do just found one company, and then keep doing the one thing. Any alternative has to consider what options it creates here.

I live in a country where the government is led by a party of the 'radical left', according to its name. It applies a neoliberal program and claims that it fights neoliberalism.
We are constantly exposed to a public debate which is in contradiction with our everyday experience. And this creates a kind of confusion, which is the perfect soil for the seed of totalitarianism to grow.

Yes :) But of course we are not the only place experiencing this "public debate confusion" in the political field (among others).


I think he might be aiming for "not as bad as Mark Zuckerberg"...

Fuck you for posting your tracking link here.

(just a joke..)


"Chrome will implement anti-fingerprinting tech and change cookies to be more private so only the site that created them can use them."

Now let this sink in...


cc. @paul

@Antanicus @aral @paul

I really don't feel like Surveillance Capitalism exists. It's just plain old Capitalism. Yes, Google is tackling privacy for their own ends. However, we shouldn't be knocking the fact that the end result is a good thing. Unlike Facebook who has no incentive to add privacy focused features.

It's Capitalism itself that we should be pissed off at, not Google specifically.

" But we also protect your information..."

"...from our competitors..."

"...because it's our product..."

"...but rest assured that you're not a 'good' and nor is your privacy. The 'good' is the aggregate of your data and everyone else in your demographic."

@aral totally agree, this is shameful behavior from The NY Times. #BoycottSurveillanceCapital let’s get it going.


You don't understand! How could Google protect all your private data if they don't have it first?
Their servers are among the safest in the world, but if you don't give them your private information, it cannot benefit from that safety!

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!