How do we stop tech companies from data raping everyone?

stop using their products, attack their wallets
then convince others on why privacy matters, i'd suggest starting here
youtube.com/watch?v=Hjspu7QV7O0

and this

Trump presents a realistic shot at reigning in the tech giants. Righties are pissed at them for perceived censorship, and this is a rare opportunity for _true_ bipartisan antitrust reform. We can't let gay political squabbles stop us from restraining what is quickly becoming Skynet.

Do you really think President Biden or Romney or whoever is next is going to do anything about it? Something like this needs a real iconoclast like Trump or Bernie. There's a populist groundswell on the left and right and finding common ground on issues like this can help us bring down the neoliberal establishment.

>orange man good

>tell someone that facebook collects every single call from your phone
>"so what? I have nothing to hide"

Fuck yeah

>orange man bad

Stop using it? Like what benefit does it add to your life? No social media here and people think I'm badass for living normally without it.

> how do we stop tech companies from data raping everyone?

Short of the government itself stepping in (like it ought to):

Learn about / use Bitcoin instead of supporting financial middleman tech companies.
rosecrypto.com/What-Is-Bitcoin

Then, unGoogle your life.
Gmail --> protonmail.com/
Chrome --> brave.com/ros383
Google --> duckduckgo.com
etc etc

If you want to kill a powerful and evil beast you first need to starve it.

The types of reform that the left and the right want are completely at odds with each other. Each side actually wants the other side de-platformed, and the problem is that the business doesn't give a shit about left or right, just what's profitable. Twitter will happily deplatform a bunch of lesser known assholes, but they'll never deplatform somebody like Trump who draws people to the platform every time he tweets, unless they do something so egregious that Twitter ends up looking stupid.

>Chrome --> brave.com/ros383
Don't use brave
hub.packtpub.com/brave-privacy-browser-has-a-backdoor-to-remotely-inject-headers-in-http-requests-hackernews/

>Google --> duckduckgo.com
I'd suggest searx.me since not all of ddg's source code is open, and it's US based, although there isn't definitive proof it's being misused, intentionally or not, searx is still safer

>Short of the government itself stepping in
They have much better incentives to abuse this shit than actually fixing it, and even when they try to do something good, they're still a bunch of boomers who don't understand shit about tech
Don't hold your breath for them, take this into your own hands

Attached: photo_2019-04-22_22-10-25.jpg (600x1200, 120K)

Why do you want to stymie the tech giants on behalf of white trash or brown communists? Also, there's no chance of this, both parties are much more concerned with donors than voters and there is no feasible way to change that on a timeline short enough to matter.

data niggers can't really hurt you unless you're a weak minded sinner

Because Google will become the new totalitarian regime and by the time the gov realizes this it will be completely out of their hands.

Stop using them.

Kill random professors?

So Pentium 4? Oof Maybe Phenom?

>a realistic shot at reigning in the tech giants
HAHAHAHAHAHA. tl;dr

Have seen that article. Here is the CEO's response.

reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/ap9149/brave_privacy_browser_has_a_backdoor_to_remotely/eg6vckb/

Brave is fine, imo.

> I'd suggest searx.me since not all of ddg's source code is open, and it's US based, although there isn't definitive proof it's being misused, intentionally or not, searx is still safer

Reasonable take, I can get behind this.

> They have much better incentives to abuse this shit than actually fixing it

Agreed. Saw just the other day that a sitting senator had a guy banned from Twitter for spreading information about 3d printing of rifles. Of course the government is more likely to abuse this than fix it. Totally agree that we have to fix it ourselves. Uphill battle, but we can do it.

bluepilled & peak

Attached: Peak SoyBoy.webm (640x358, 1.91M)

>The types of reform that the left and the right want are completely at odds with each other.
We're living in an age of political realignment. We saw the nascent populist right begin to form around 2012 with NRx and the alt right and neo traditionalist circles online, and it was cemented into mainstream politics by Trump. I strongly believe the next major political change will be a coalition of populists, left and right. People like Tucker Carlson can shift the Right away from impotent small government conservatism, while collaborating with serious leftists on issues they see eye to eye on (the surveillance state, corporate monopolies, big tech, the military industrial complex).

Smart populists should be doing everything they can to reach common ground in mainstream politics before the neoliberal establishment fully utilizes big data and the 3 letter agencies to completely suppress us. Our vision should be for our respective populist wings to overthrow their establishment leaders.

>Also, there's no chance of this, both parties are much more concerned with donors than voters and there is no feasible way to change that on a timeline short enough to matter.
Trump and AOC show that it's not only possible, but hugely effective. We just aren't working together because people aren't serious about tackling these issues yet. We're too fixated on short sighted catharsis (OWN THE LIBS / PUNCH NAZIS)

Stop using Jow Forums, for one.

>Here is the CEO's response.
Fair enough, from what I got, it just sends additional info about the user agent, right?
That by itself isn't necessarily bad, I admit, thanks for sharing that user, but brave still isn't the safest choice in regards to web browsing, I'd recommend firefox with uBlock, uMatrix and HTTPS Everywhere set to block unecrypted requests, plus some about:config changes, ungoogled-chromium could be an option too, never used so can't really recommend it.
If you want something working out of the box, then brave probably isn't so bad, although I'd still recommend firefox's built-in tracking protections over brave's.

Attached: brave.png (720x303, 40K)

> I'd still recommend firefox's built-in tracking protections over brave's.

Firefox is garbage. They've made their stance on things like freedom of speech very clear. They recently deplatformed Dissenter from their browser addons site for no particular reason. Sure you can sideload it, but fuck those people and fuck their browser. Trusting them on anything is a mistake.

You got a point, user. I'll keep a close eye on firefox updates and keep on changing stuff as I see fit, for now I don't have much knowledge about chromium based browsers to make a choice/change, so i'll stick with ff for the time being

Brave is just a skin on Chrome, which also banned Dissenter.

Until someone actually creates a new browser engine you're cucked on any "modern" browser

Implement a chastity belt for your sluty data.

pass laws that data should be owned by the state

Nigga Communist China has zero privacy

>Brave is just a skin on Chrome

Chromium, not Chrome. Big difference. The other difference is that unlike Chrome, Brave doesn't have an app store that it's shitcanned Dissenter from. They're working on one and they've stated they wouldn't ban Dissenter from it if it existed.

I agree that it would be nice if a viable alternate browser engine existed.

>Brave doesn't have an app store that it's shitcanned Dissenter from.
I missed that saga, can you give a quick rundown? What justification did Google give for removing it?

No one thinks that about you

the only truly based way to live is to live a dual life. on one side you're [email protected], and you are a standup citizen. on the other side you're [email protected] and you set the bar with degeneracy. really though if you block everything you will stand out like a soar thumb in the sea of everyone. you have to blend in.

A communist society would be stateless. China isn't communist (nor do they say they are).

I think we have to push for the companies to be more transparent about their products and that we, as a society, should contribute more to free software and free technologies in general (like open source hardware), so we depend less on closed and secretive proprietary tech.
As for yourself, just try to check everything you are using and don't support sons of bitches.

>not real gomunism
every time.
I'd rather get datamined than live around niggers

I won't discuss which system or way of life is the best or say which I prefer, but communism, by the marxist definition, would be anarchist (i.e. stateless). Let's not stray too much from the thread tho.

you think they're unable to identify your alt accounts?

stop using tech companies products

By not using them.

Ban cookies for sites that you do not need accounts for

Why the fuck do you guys care about data protection so much? I get that having some shady ass javascripts running in the background isn't something you'd want, but who cares if google and facebook steals your data. Aside from targeting ads towards you (which you probably don't even see due to an adblocker) it's not like they can use your data for much against you without getting in a heap of legal trouble for exposing private documents.

paranoia makes unvalued human beings feel valued because when you think someones spying on you it makes you feel like you have something of value and you're important

a lot of millennials were raised by narcissists and psychopaths so enforcing privacy is a coping method for home and state abuse.

based and ecopilled

They specified "threatening, harassment, bullying of others, and hate speech." Comically, they also said "depictions of gratuitous violence" which is literally impossible outside of text on a screen since Dissenter doesn't support images. Plus, Dissenter removes bona fide threats of violence as a matter of course so it's all just a bullshit excuse to censor them. Real story is that a couple of douchebag bloggers over at CJR (Columbia Journalism Review) wrote some garbage which more or less demanded Dissenter get kicked off, and Google complied.

Attached: google_is_evil.jpg (1242x1669, 288K)

Because there's no need for either to know shit about me. The only Google service I have to use is captcha, because it infested most of the web.

>we are gonna bully you, and we are going to call you a bully while doing so

But how does it hurt you,even if they do?
Aside from a mentality of "I don't feel like companies having a personal profile on me is good" I fail to see how you are actually affected by them taking your data.

The first and most important answer is that we can't trust Google to not sell the data to shady sources (as they regularly do), nor can we trust them to keep the data secure (as their databases are regularly hacked), so right out the gate the argument that it's "just" Google having our data is just outright false, because it's not.

Secondly, yes, there is plenty they can do. Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and IBM, just four companies, own 59% of all cloud based hosting, and all four have demonstrated that they are more than willing to completely axe someone from using their services. This essentially bars you from accessing over half the internet, much of which is used for vital services. This includes bank accounts, apartment websites, your utility company's website, etc.

Thirdly, the documents aren't private. The moment you use their services, it's no longer your data, but their data. You're using their service, and they have a right to do whatever they want with information about their services.

>But how does it hurt you,even if they do? I fail to see how you are actually affected by them taking your data.
I'm not going to selectively stand against things that affect me. You can be against slavery despite having no realistic chance of becoming a slave.

>Why exactly does privacy matter if it doesn't affect you?
because I might be doing things that are perfectly legal and yet would deeply embarrass me should they be made public, jeopardising a potential future in politics.
because I might be partaking in (arguably) harmless civil disobedience, which is a vital process by which bogus laws may be overturned.
because the state I live under might be abusing its powers in various ways, or even despotic in nature.
because compromising my security for the benefit of the state might inadvertently benefit independent parties, leading to identity theft or actual terroristic threats upon my person.
but most importantly, because there is no reason for it, whatsoever.

>jeopardising a potential future in politics.
lmao

What kind of data about you could google leak which would make you think using their platform was a mistake? The data actually being processed and used i catered towards bringing you the best McThinkpad commercials when you're browsing the internet, none of the data kept is personal to the degree that it would actually hurt you if a leak occured.

I didn't actually know about Google axing people from their services, do you have an example?

Also saying that your documents aren't private because you use their service is bullshit. Sure they probably could access it, but they'd get in huge legal trouble due to stuff like the Data Protection Act of 2018

Yes, if only there was some sort of law which required companies to delete all data they have associated to your person if you request it.

Oh wait

>Yes, if only there was some sort of law which required companies to delete all data they have associated to your person if you request it.
As shown by PRISM and every surveillance leakage ever, laws are worthless if you can't force government/companies to obey them.
There are many problems with leaving it to laws:
1. You are trusting the company to be competent about it (they often aren't, they may not clear their backups when deleting data due to requests, or be unable to do so if it's stored in a read-only format)
2. You are assuming the company isn't being forced by the government to keep records, or just send them to government servers (PRISM)
3. They may run an algorithm that 'anonymizes' the data and be allowed to legally keep it, despite those algorithms failing under many circumstances, specially if you are unique enough.

The only effective solution is to simply not give them data in the first place.

with guns

Prism requires companies to turn over any data which matches court approved search terms. When the court approves were likely talking about a crime. Would it not be better if we have as much information as possible about a suspect, even if it breaches privacy?

>Prism requires companies to turn over any data which matches court approved search terms.
False. Snowden's main problem with PRISM was the lack of any checks for looking into someone's private life.
popularmechanics.com/military/a9465/nsa-data-mining-how-it-works-15910146/
>Snowden claims this program enables low-level analysts to access communications without oversight, circumventing the checks and balances of the FISA court.
>Would it not be better if we have as much information as possible about a suspect, even if it breaches privacy?
No, it wouldn't. That implies such system will also have as much information as possible about every innocent person as well. This is bad for the reasons stated in I'm okay with targeted surveillance, but it's immoral to data mine every innocent ever on the chance they may become criminals one day.

Attached: Bowsette.jpg (800x1000, 107K)

>Would it not be better if we have as much information as possible about a suspect, even if it breaches privacy?
No. Your data should remain private, as if it was on your own hard drive. No one should have power or rights to forcefully take it from you, regardless of their reason.

Silly user, of course we're not planning to strike back against the techno-system in a way they can never prepare for!

Attached: foams.jpg (500x500, 253K)

unironically, this
till data raping gives you profit you will be doing it.

Make any kind of data collection, online services and advertising in general illegal.

Attached: 1309625997111.jpg (460x425, 58K)

is there a better one then?

Not that guy, but

>What kind of data
is the wrong question to ask. As noted, the kind of data gathering going on would be rightfully considered Orwellian if done by the state. A company would be more than happy to sell the data to a government (assuming the government in question didn't simply strong-arm them into giving the data up for free), and I have no reason to trust the company would have any qualms trying to sell the data to anyone and everyone if they were given the chance. Joe Q. Plebian down the street doesn't need to know my browsing habits any more than Uncle Sam or CompanyCorp LLC, so why let any of them have such easy access to it?

>legal trouble
user, this is America. Even if you could find a way to prove that the law was breached, it would take you years to get the case to court, the company will have orders of magnitude more money to throw at the case (meaning a better legal team than what you'd be able to muster, the capacity to financially outlast you while the case drags on, and the option to simply buy you off via a settlement), and even if you somehow win, they'll likely get off with little more than a fine.

because this site is full of pedophiles

How does that corporate dick taste?