These de-Googling or un-Googling submissions always seem to follow the same pattern: try to find a "replacement" for every company Google has acquired.
What I never see is someone who proposes "de-Googling" and foregoing a replacement.
Consider the following generic example.
Google acquires some company that intermediates some task that people perform using a computer. Now Google collects data about its users.
A hypothetical computer user makes use of this intermediary "service" as well as others offered by Google. Eventually user decides he wants to stop giving away data to Google.
User then publishes to the web the idea of ceasing to use Google-owned intermediaries by using other, "equivalent" intermediaries for each and _every_ service. Or he tries to replicate role of the intermediary himself through "self-hosting".
But he never considers that in some cases using an intermediary is itself a problem, or may be unnecessary, irrespective of whether it is Google or some other entity. Why does he need to preserve each and _every_ Google acquisition by finding a replacement.
The use of an intermediary allows data collection and in almost all cases that's why someone started a so-called "tech" company. They saw opportunity to profit from being an intermediary (middleman).
The attempt to find a replacement for _every_ Google-owned intermediary seems rather brainless. As if every Google acquisition is something that must exist and must be used.
Certainly there is an arguable privacy benefit from using disparate third parties for different tasks instead of using the same one for every task. However there is also a benefit from not using a third party at all, or even from not performing the task via a server (self-hosting).
What I never see is someone who proposes "de-Googling" and foregoing a replacement.
Consider the following generic example.
Google acquires some company that intermediates some task that people perform using a computer. Now Google collects data about its users.
A hypothetical computer user makes use of this intermediary "service" as well as others offered by Google. Eventually user decides he wants to stop giving away data to Google.
User then publishes to the web the idea of ceasing to use Google-owned intermediaries by using other, "equivalent" intermediaries for each and _every_ service. Or he tries to replicate role of the intermediary himself through "self-hosting".
But he never considers that in some cases using an intermediary is itself a problem, or may be unnecessary, irrespective of whether it is Google or some other entity. Why does he need to preserve each and _every_ Google acquisition by finding a replacement.
The use of an intermediary allows data collection and in almost all cases that's why someone started a so-called "tech" company. They saw opportunity to profit from being an intermediary (middleman).
The attempt to find a replacement for _every_ Google-owned intermediary seems rather brainless. As if every Google acquisition is something that must exist and must be used.
Certainly there is an arguable privacy benefit from using disparate third parties for different tasks instead of using the same one for every task. However there is also a benefit from not using a third party at all, or even from not performing the task via a server (self-hosting).