Oddbean

▲ ▼

 @2a48eef0 and if you don't think that is  completely reasonable, you can turn it off.

▲ ▼

 @f1c2774e 

Elephant in the room: Google is not good, and nothing that they have done for the past couple decades is pro-privacy or pro-freedom.

With that out of the way... this is Google legitimizing their existing data farming by hiding it behind categories. They make no guarantees about removing data.

▲ ▼

 @2a48eef0 dude, never speak in absolutes.  It always back fires.  ;)

▲ ▼

 @2a48eef0 this is distinct from their own data collection from Google properties.  This is based on the usage patterns in Chrome.  

 As always, using another browser is an option.  Or turn it off.  My expectation is that IF it pans out (adoption by advertisers) and 3rd party cookies are removed by Chrome, other browsers will follow suit

▲ ▼

 @f1c2774e 

"this is distinct from their own data collection from Google properties."

What were you saying about absolutes?

We have zero proof of what you assert.

Sure, that is what the press release may say... but you know how well that goes.

Google also insists it does not censor search results, yet we have evidence of them doing exactly that.

▲ ▼

 @2a48eef0 

"We have zero proof of what you assert."

My understanding is that this is in the open source chromium project, and if that's correct we do have a way to validate the assertion.

I'm not defending Google.  Just saying that the article was misrepresenting the scope of the technology.  

'nuff said

▲ ▼

 @f1c2774e 

Slippery slopes are real.

▲ ▼

 @f1c2774e 

If I were Google, I would have the browser report little, but then profile it from the homebase.

These guys are an abusive monopoly. They are probably way ahead of me here.

▲ ▼

 @f1c2774e 

"using another browser is an option"

Yes, that's what the article suggests.